Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Steel Supplies

Mr. D. Howell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the unemployment and dislocation of industry at the Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company due to a shortage of steel; why this exporting industry cannot get adequate supplies of steel; and what action he is taking to deal with this situation.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I am aware of the company's difficulties, which have been caused by the breakage of rolls in two mills at the works of the company's main steel suppliers. Production from one mill is expected to start again soon, and arrangements have been made for suitable steel to be rolled shortly at another works until the second mill comes into production again.

Mr. Howell: While that may be true of the immediate difficulties, is the President aware that in fact there have been difficulties over a long period? In view of the important potentiality of this industry in the export trade, will the President please keep the matter under close observation, since some of us feel it certainly needs it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly keep an eye on it; but the real difficultly here is an exceptional one, due to the breakage of this roll.

Mr. Bottomsley: Would the President say what steps are taken to see that the exporting industries in particular get the steel they require?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a rather wider question. In this case, steps are being taken to supply from another firm and to try to mend the roll which is broken.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shortage of steel is hampering work in the ship repair and other industries; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that there are shortages in certain industries, although the total supply of steel has improved. The Iron and Steel Board is in consultation with the steel producers and others concerned to see how supplies for ship repairs can be improved.

Mr. Jay: Are not overseas orders being lost at present in this and other industries as a result of shortage of steel? Is the President satisfied that he can put this matter right without control of inessential uses of steel at home?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have discussed this before. I do not favour the allocation of steel; but I can say this to the hon. Gentleman, that the Iron and Steel Board, on 11th May, stated that deliveries to the shipbuilding, constructional, and other engineering industries have been rising in March and were at the rate of 98,400 tons a week, as compared with 82,900 tons a week a year ago, giving a rise of 19 per cent., which is a very substantial performance.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in spite of the remarks he has made, there is still considerable anxiety in the shipbuilding and repairing industry in regard to supplies of steel, particularly on Tyneside? Can he not do anything about it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of anxieties in many industries on the subject of steel shortage.

Mr. Hayman: Is the President aware that there are severe shortages of steel for country blacksmiths and agricultural engineers? Will he do what he can to improve the supply position for them?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of that, and I have answered a number of Questions on the subject.

Irish Republic

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under present conditions Great Britain is absorbing approximately 90 per cent. of Irish exports, whereas they are only placing about 50 per cent. of their import business with Great Britain, and that imports into Ireland from Germany, especially in respect of electrical equipment, are continuing to increase to the detriment of British producers; and whether in these circumstances he will now arrange for an early revision of the Anglo-Irish Commercial Agreement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: United Kingdom exports to the Irish Republic last year totalled some £114 million as against imports of only £97·6 million. These figures do not suggest that the present arrangements operate to our disadvantage. I am aware that imports from Germany into the Irish Republic increased last year, though the total—£9·6 million—is still small compared with our own exports. I do not know what type of electrical equipment my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but imports into the Irish Republic of electrical machinery from Germany fell by roughly one-third in value in 1954 and 1955, while imports from the United Kingdom slightly increased.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the particular difficulties which are being faced by the pig and bacon industries of this country, which are greatly due to these large imports from Ireland?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that raises a different question.

Motor Industry

Mr. Chapman as: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further consideration he has now given to the request of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions that the Governments

should institute a complete inquiry into the state of the British motor industry; and what decision he can now announce.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 10th May to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson).

Mr. Chapman: Does that mean that the President disregards the pressure of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, representing well over a million workers, the grave and deteriorating export position of this industry, and the persistence of mass redundancy right through the summer? Does he disregard all those things in the case of this industry, and is he proposing to do nothing? Will he at least call a meeting of both sides, leading trade unionists and leading manufacturers, under his own auspices, for a frank exchange of views on the whole situation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question asked whether I would have a roving inquiry into the motor industry. That industry is composed of a number of individual manufacturers who are in keen competition, both between themselves and with overseas suppliers. I really do not think that a roving inquiry by Whitehall would improve that situation. At the same time, I have communicated that decision to the general secretary of the Confederation, and I told him that, if he wishes, and against that background, I would, of course, be happy to see him.

Arab League Boycott

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties caused to British exporters to the Middle East by restrictions imposed by the Arab countries regarding trade with Israel; and whether, in consultation with the London Chamber of Commerce, he will consider what steps can be taken to defend the interests of British firms conducting legitimate trade with friendly countries.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. The Board of Trade give United Kingdom exporters all practicable assistance and keep in close touch on this matter with representative trade organisations, including the London Chamber of Commerce.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the President consider even closer relations with the


London Chamber of Commerce, for the reason that the Chamber refuses to certify whether a firm is Jewish, has Jewish directors or shareholders, or is in any way concerned with Jews, but will not refuse similar information when asked whether firms are trading with Israel? The reason is that the assistance of the British Government is needed to offset the Arab boycott. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his right hon. Friends what can be done to stop this interference with the perfectly legitimate rights of British exporters to trade with a foreign country such as Israel?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Of course, I deplore this practice as much as the hon. Member does—there is no question about that—and I will examine what he has said. I have read a number of Questions and Answers, many of them addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, on this point. I do not see any further course of action open to the British Government at present, but I will certainly look at any recommendations which the hon. Member makes.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say whether he is satisfied that these restrictions do not conflict with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?

Mr. Thorneycroft: They would conflict if the Arab States were members of the General Agreement.

United Kingdom Imports of Citrus Fruit
Tons


—
1952
1953
1954
1955


Citrus Fruit—


Fresh—


British West Indies *
…
…
3,996
7,098
4,345
7,209


United States
…
…
6
8
2,832
8,237


Israel
…
…
80,882
118,247
149,556
116,906


Preserved—


British West Indies*
…
…
1,622
2,012
2,293
2,704


United States
…
…
0
0
1,708
1,804


Israel
…
…
146
137
957
691


Juices—


British West Indies*
…
…
8,934
11,602
8,772
11,799


United States
…
…
8
1,144
1,851
3,086


Israel
…
…
4,474
3,149
3,333
3,119


Total—


British West Indies*
…
…
14,552
20,712
15,410
21,712


United States
…
…
14
1,152
6,391
13,127


Israel
…
…
85,502
121,533
153,846
120,716


*Jamaica, Leeward Islands, Windward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the President not prepared to consider at least whether it would not be possible to place restrictions on the importation of goods from the countries in question to Great Britain if they continue to exercise discrimination against British goods?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I doubt whether the answer to racial discrimination is counter-racial discrimination. We have got to look at it in some other way.

Citrus Fruits

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of citrus fruits imported into this country from British West Indies, the United States of America and Israel, respectively, in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Pannell: Whilst awaiting those figures, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether either the United States of America or Israel subsidises the export of citrus fruits either directly or indirectly?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a different question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

Following are the figures:

Anglo-Norwegian Trade

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a fresh approach to the Norwegian Government with a view to increasing the quotas for British exports to Norway.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. We discussed these quotas with the Norwegian Government as recently as March and, having regard to Norway's balance of payments situation, I would consider the quotas to be substantially adequate.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, taking into account Norwegian earnings from shipping, Norway has a substantial balance of payments in her favour; and having regard to this, would it not be a good thing if she took a few more of our goods?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In principle, it would always be a good thing if everybody took more of our goods. Norway is not, however, without her balance of payments difficulties. In fact, our bilateral quotas with her cover only a very small proportion of our total trade in that area.

Employment, West Lothian (New Industries)

Mr. J. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that redundancy in the factory of the Telegraph Condenser Company at Bathgate, together with further closures in in the shale oil industry and the pending closure of coal mines in the vicinity is creating a condition of probable heavy unemployment in West Lothian; and if he will expedite and strengthen existing efforts to attract new industries to the county.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Almost all the workers who have so far become redundant have found other jobs and there is at present little unemployment in the area. The Ministry of Labour and the National Coal Board will do everything possible to place any who become redundant in future. The opportunities for other work in this area are, however, limited and the Government will continue to bring the attractions of the area to the attention of industrialists with suitable new projects.

Horticultural Produce (Exports to North America)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much horticultural produce was exported to North America in 1955 and 1956; and what steps his Department took to encourage this.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In 1955, £96,000; and in the first three months of this year, £31,000. Exporters to North America can call upon the full commercial services provided by the Government, and upon the advice and assistance of the Dollar Exports Council.

Mr. Harrison: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, may we take it now that, in view of the great differences in the methods of marketing horticultural produce in North America. everything possible will be done to encourage the British growers to export there and all facilities will be available to them in selling their produce?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We certainly put all facilities at the disposal of these exporters, as of others also, in this important market.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the President aware that the Minister of State and myself were told that frozen strawberries were in demand in Canada? What help or encouragement does the Department give producers to sell them in this market?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know that we actually mix ourselves up with the freezing of the strawberries. Our aim is rather broader and more all-embracing. What we can do through the aid of our commercial officers abroad, or through the Dollar Exports Council or other means, will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Premium Bonds

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that Premium Bonds may be made available to investors overseas.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The point will be covered when the detailed scheme is announced: but as at present advised, I see no reason why oversea investors


should not buy the bond on the same terms as they can buy other National Savings securities.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this will give great satisfaction overseas, where there is already very great interest in this new form of investment in the United Kingdom, not least in the dollar area? I hope he will consider what can be done about exchange difficulties.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the special advertisement she is giving to this Government security.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister consult the Presbytery of Aberdeen before he indulges in this scheme? Is he aware that the noble Lady's enthusiasm for Premium Bonds is not shared by the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Brooke: I know that the Scots live in a different country, but I have yet to learn that they live overseas.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that the Government will be prepared to allow the prizes which may be won by overseas investors, if that is the right word to use, to be remitted overseas? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking, and will it include remittances in dollars?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will await the actual terms of the scheme. I was today giving a preliminary answer.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Hunter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons holding post-war credits on 31st March, 1956; and what was the total amount owing to them.

Mr. H. Brooke: The number of holders of post-war credits at 31st March, 1956, is estimated at about 9½ million, and the amount of credits then outstanding at about £523 million.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Financial Secretary aware that many holders of post-war credits were disappointed that the Chancellor made no mention of these credits in his Budget statement? Is he also aware that many people are disappointed that the Government have made no

announcement of lowering the age from 65, which means that it will take over 25 years to repay these post-war credits?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I am aware from my own correspondence that numbers of people were disappointed. My right hon. Friend considered this matter very carefully this year, but he came to the conclusion that this was not the time when he should take a step in the direction of releasing more purchasing power.

Pharmaceutical Products (United States Patents)

Mr. Snow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value in United States dollars of the sums authorised by him for remittance to the United States of America, for the years 1954, 1955 and to the latest convenient date in 1956, by United Kingdom proprietary pharmaceutical manufacturers producing under private licence from United States patent holders.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury(Sir Edward Boyle): I regret we have no figures either on the basis of authorisations or of actual remittances to the U.S. which distinguish payments by U.K. pharmaceutical manufacturers in respect of proprietary rights.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had a similar Answer from the Minister of Health? Is he also aware that, during the debate on the Guillebaud Report, alarming evidence was provided from both sides about the increase in the prescribing of these drugs, which are manufactured under licence in this country, but for which dollar remittances have to be made? Will he look into the matter?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Member likes to send me any information, I will, of course, look into it, but we have no official figures.

Pipe Tobacco (Prices)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average increase in tax on pipe tobacco expressed in terms of increased tax per ounce.

Mr. H. Brooke: About 2d.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of popular brands of pipe tobacco has gone up by


3d. an ounce since the Budget? Has he any information whether there has been an increase in the retailers' margins at the same time as the increase in the tax?

Mr. Brooke: My information is that the price has gone up by 2½d. in some cases and by 3d. in other cases. I understand from statements which have been made that the new prices include at least ½d. additional margin for retail distributors.

Mr. Jay: Would not the tobacco companies also make a large profit on the stocks bought at the old prices?

Mr. Brooke: This Question solely concerns the retail prices.

Teachers (Tax Allowances)

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to enable members of the teaching profession to be granted appropriate tax concessions in respect of books and journals needed and purchased by them on terms similar to concessions made to members of all other professions.

Mr. H. Brooke: The same expenses rules applies to teachers as to other employees assessable under Schedule E. My right hon. Friend is not proposing any change in this position.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a trifle unreal and unreasonable that a tax concession allowed to accountants, solicitors, clergymen and others, should be withheld from members of the teaching profession? If we really wish to encourage teachers to keep abreast of contemporary opinion, ought we not to instruct the Inland Revenue to alter this practice?

Mr. Brooke: These are matters which could properly be discussed in debates on the Finance Bill. I think my hon. Friend is incorrect in suggesting that there is any difference here between the treatment of teachers and the treatment of clergymen.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the real difficulty the anomaly as between Schedule D and Schedule E taxpayers? Is it not time that the Chancellor had a good look at the problem in view of the way in which Schedule D taxpayers are allowed generous expenses and Schedule E taxpayers are not? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a very large number of employees in certain professions, and

Members of Parliament and others, are not allowed to charge expenses which really are necessary in the performance of their duties, whilst, under Schedule D, a very wide range of expenses can be allowed?

Mr. Brooke: As the right hon. Member is aware, the Royal Commission made certain recommendations about Schedule E. My right hon. Friend has given very careful consideration to that, but he decided not to include any changes in the law in that respect in this Finance Bill, which, of course, we shall be debating at length.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that, after receiving evidence from the National Union of Teachers, the Royal Commission did recommend such a tax concession as is asked for in this Question? Will he give it his consideration when we reach the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Brooke: I think I made it clear that the Royal Commission made recommendations, but my right hon. Friend decided not to include any proposal for changing the law in this Finance Bill.

Private Woodlands

Mr. Hayman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special taxation concessions are given in respect of private woodlands.

Mr. H. Brooke: Income Tax in respect of the occupation of woodlands is assessable under Schedule B on the basis of one-third of the annual value, except where an occupier of woodlands managed on a commercial basis and, with a view to the realisation of profits, elects once and for all to be charged under Schedule D instead of under Schedule B.

Mr. Hayman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a noble Lord who is in another place has written a book entitled "Profitable Forestry"? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter again to see whether it is really necessary to continue these subsidies to land owners?

Mr. Brooke: I do not see any subsidy to land owners arising here. It is quite true that the Royal Commission recommended the abolition of Schedule B, but the present situation I described in answer


to the Question originates from an amendment accepted by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special concessions on Death Duties are made in respect of private woodlands.

Mr. H. Brooke: Under the Estate Duty law, growing timber is not taken into account in determining either the value of the land passing on the death or the rate of duty. If such timber is subsequently sold, duty becomes payable at the rate already fixed in connection with the last death on which the land passed. Timber sold standing is chargeable on its value at the last death; timber sold felled is chargeable on the net proceeds of sale.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the financial stringency which prevents the Chancellor granting post-war credit concessions to disabled people, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look now at this concession to the owners of woodlands?

Mr. Brooke: I am very willing to look at anything to which the hon. Member draws my attention, but I cannot see any substantial concession here.

London Airport Staff (Pay)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which sections of public servants employed at London Airport are paid the London rate for their work; and by what Government Departments they are employed.

Mr. H. Brooke: Industrial staff at London Airport, employed by the Air Ministry and Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, receive London rates of pay, for the reasons explained in my Answer of 22nd March to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) Telephonists employed by the Post Office also receive London rates.

Mr. Brockway: Why is it that non-industrial workers employed by the State do not receive the London rate when non-industrial workers employed by private concerns, like the banks—even American air companies and others—get that rate? Ought we not to set an example on this question of non-industrial workers?

Mr. Brooke: The answer is that all these different arrangements are subject

to agreement with the staff. I think the staff associations look after their members well, and I would deprecate Parliament giving a lead.

Members' Salaries

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the salaries of Members of Parliament were increased to £1,000 per annum; what was the depreciation of the purchasing value of £1 from 1945 to that date; and what has been the further depreciation of the purchasing value of the £ sterling since the salary was increased to £1,000 per annum.

Mr. H. Brooke: The salaries of Members were increased to £1,000 per annum with effect from 1st April, 1946. Taking the purchasing value of £1 as 20s. in 1945, the figures for 1946 and March, 1956, are 19s. 5d. and 12s. 6d. respectively.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that many junior Ministers are very dissatisfied with the present position? Is he further aware that many Members of Parliament are dissatisfied with the position, particularly hon. Members opposite, and that it has been suggested that the Tory Central Office is putting some of them on to make up their incomes as guinea pig directors? Can we have an assurance that the Government also deprecate that and that the Treasury is not in any way assisting that?

Mr. Brooke: I do not see anything in this Question either about guinea pigs or junior Ministers. The hon. Member is entitled to his own views in this matter, but other people hold the view that this is a time when Parliament should set an example of restraint.

Mr. Stokes: That is all very well, but, leaving aside guinea pigs and their kith and kin, does not the Financial Secretary realise that hon. Members of this House are worse paid than any other hon. Members in the whole of the British Commonwealth? How does he justify keeping people on this ridiculous rate of pay, which no equally responsible person in civil life would endure for a single moment? Is it not really obnoxious just because the right hon. Gentleman is backed up by a lot of rich men on the other side of the House?

Mr. Brooke: When I look in front of me I can see some rich men also.

Mr. P. Bell: Before my right hon. Friend commits himself to an irrevocable reply, will he carefully consult the election addresses of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this important and burning topic?

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter seriously? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend indicating that there is considerable dissatisfaction on this side of the House, and to some extent on the other side of the House, about the salaries paid to hon. Members? Will he have taken into account the depreciation in the value of the £? Will he also indicate to his right hon. Friend that there are many of us who are not afraid to go to our constituents, or anywhere in the country, to make a plea on behalf of hon. Members who, having regard to their position, are entitled to much higher salaries?

Mr. Brooke: I hope nobody will imagine that I treat this matter lightly. I was a Member of a Select Committee which examined the question some years ago, and so I am fully seized of it. I shall certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what has been said on both sides of the House today.

Advertising Expenditure

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated total expenditure on advertising allowed against tax in the financial year 1955–56.

Mr. H. Brooke: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel it is highly desirable that some estimate should be made of this expenditure in view of the very high cost to the Treasury, and also in view of the fact that this expenditure is directly contrary to what we understand to be the Government's policy of restricting home consumption?

Mr. Brooke: It is certainly not the Government's policy to close down all advertising. The Inland Revenue Department possesses a great deal of information, but I am afraid that the precise information required to answer the hon. Member's Question could not be obtained in any practicable way.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen estimates made by the Advertising Association, quoted by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in November, 1954, when the total expenditure was over £220 million? Since that figure is now probably more like £300 million, will he not admit that the Treasury is losing a great deal of important revenue by this concession?

Mr. Brooke: I have seen a number of unofficial estimates of the total amount spent on advertising, but I would not like to give the House estimates for which I cannot vouch, and I can only say that it is not possible to state to the House with any precision the expenditure on advertising which has been allowed against tax.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that no one is suggesting at this moment the complete prohibition of advertising, but merely that the Exchequer should not pay for it?

Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Member looks in the OFFICIAL REPORT at his previous supplementary question, I think he will see that that is just what he was suggesting.

Hon. Members: No.

Nationalised Industries (Loans)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what terms, particularly as regards interest and repayment, loans for capital purposes will, under his new policy, be lent to the nationalised industries.

Sir E. Boyle: The rates of interest on the advances will correspond broadly to those appropriate to Government credit for a comparable period of years. Precise details of the arrangements, including the appropriate terms for repayment, are at present under discussion with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these loans are to be longterm loans and whether the Atomic Energy Authority is now to be charged interest on advances made to it?

Sir E. Boyle: I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he kindly would, to wait until we reach Clause 34 of the Finance


Bill, when, I promise, a Treasury Minister will make a full statement on all these matters.

Capital Issues Committee (Returns)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for regular returns of applications granted or refused to be made by the Capital Issues Committee.

Sir E. Boyle: I will consider this suggestion, but I doubt whether there is enough general interest in such returns to justify their publication.

Mr. Grimond: Surely this Committee, which has had its terms of reference widened, should make some report to Parliament, which is ultimately responsible for what it does?

Sir E. Boyle: I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend has not closed his mind to the suggestion, and I shall, of course, convey to him the view which the hon. Member has expressed.

Civil Service (Pay)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give details of the number and grades of civil servants who have not received an increase in salary since June, 1954; and the average percentage increase in the wage or salary scale of the remainder since this date.

Mr. H. Brooke: There was a general increase in most Civil Service salaries as from 1st July, 1954. Since that date, increases have been given to all grades up to the level of Under-Secretary. The number of officers above that level who have not received such increases is about 180, excluding the Foreign Service. The increases given to the rest of the Service have varied considerably in percentage terms from grade to grade: the overall average is of the order of 10 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Financial Secretary aware that, in view of the very warm and sympathetic reply he gave to my previous supplementary question, I do not intend to ask him one on this?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Advisers and Attachés

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural advisers and agricultural attachés appointed by him are now serving in the Dominions and foreign countries; and which appointments have been terminated in the past year.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): There are at present six agricultural and food advisers and attachés serving abroad. During the past year, officers serving in Ottawa and in Washington have returned to this country and have been replaced. The officer who was serving in Copenhagen has returned to this country. A successor is being selected.

Woodland Owners (Assistance)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he gives to the planting of timber other than national forests.

Mr. Amory: The full range of assistance and advice available to private woodland owners from the Forestry Commission is set out in the Forestry Commission's free booklet entitled "Grants for Woodland Owners." I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if it would not be a good thing if he conducted a full-blooded campaign to induce landowners to do what their forefathers did in the eighteenth century, that is, to plant timber? We need it badly. Will the right hon. Gentleman secure a copy of the book shown to him a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and circulate it to all members of another place and to all landowners in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Amory: Yes, and I should very much have liked to have asked the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) a supplementary question about the book because I have not seen it, though I am looking forward to knowing what it is about. I agree with the hon. Member that the proper maintenance and improvement of our national


woodlands is very much in the national interest. We are doing everything we reasonably can to provide incentives and encouragement with that object.

Slaughterhouses (Meat Inspection)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recommendation in paragraph 109 of the Oake Committee's Report, that, whenever practicable, veterinary surgeons should be appointed as senior inspectors responsible for groups of non-veterinary meat inspectors, he will take steps to acquire the necessary powers to insist on such supervision by veterinary officers of meat inspection in the case of slaughterhouses towards the cost of which the Government agree to make a financial contribution.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Local authorities are responsible for meat inspection, and the kind of supervision and the officers required are matters best left to their discretion.

Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all local authorities are not equally progressive in these matters and require some lead from the Government? What is the good of the House passing legislation about clean food, and so on, if we do not go to the root of the problem?

Mr. Amory: I do not want the hon. Member to have any doubt in his mind. I assure him that I am very anxious to do everything I can to make sure that the inspection shall be as satisfactory as it can be; but the way in which that is carried out, and the type of officer by whom it is carried out, are matters in which we ought to give a great deal of discretion to the local authorities.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities would very warmly welcome any assistance that can be given to them by veterinary surgeons?

Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend on that, and he will agree with me that there is at present a shortage of veterinary officers.

Mr. Champion: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in this matter we lag behind most of the continental countries, certainly those most advanced

in this matter of meat inspection? Would it not be a good thing if we employed veterinary officers for this purpose of inspection?

Mr. Amory: I agree. I think there is quite a bit of progress still to be made in this country.

Forestry Commission (Land)

Mr. J Eden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what acreage of land has already been sold as surplus to the requirements of the Forestry Commission;
(2) whether a final decision has yet been reached on the total acreage of land to be regarded as surplus to the requirements of the Forestry Commission and to be sold.

Mr. Amory: It has so far been decided to sell about 28,000 acres, 643 acres of which have been sold.

Mr. Eden: Has my right hon. Friend reviewed the Government's policy relating to the retention of land by the Forestry Commission for a strategic reserve as the result of recent developments in nuclear energy? Will my right hon. Friend speed up the sale of all land under his control which is not likely to be used for forestry purposes?

Mr. Amory: The general overall policy is always under consideration, and under consideration in the light of the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we are anxious to release for sale all land which is not going to be required for planting and which is not so intermixed with forestry land as to make it impracticable. There is another thing that I would ask my hon. Friend to remember, and that is the utility of holding a certain number of small, unplanted holdings in the vicinity of the plantations for the use of part-time forestry workers.

Vegetables (Import Duties)

Mr. Irving: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from trade associations and consumers with regard to the suspension of import duties on vegetables.

Mr. Amory: One trade association and two Housewives' Leagues have written to me proposing the suspension of tariffs on imported vegetables.

Mr. Irving: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him if he is aware that the Co-operative movement, representing 11 million consumers, is deeply disturbed about the existing high prices for vegetables? Is he further aware that the Swedish Government, faced with similar difficulties, have suspended their import duties on potatoes? In view of the forecast that there will be a shortage for some weeks yet, will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this matter?

Mr. Amory: Tariff changes are, of course, a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend has recently explained that it is not a sensible thing to do to make changes in tariffs to meet short-term difficulties in supply.

Government Grain Silos

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the short notice given of his decision to close the Government grain silos next month, he will allow their use for the 1956 harvest, maintaining the drying and storage facilities until 30th October next, by which time farmers' co-operative societies and other groups should be able to decide whether to lease them.

Mr. Amory: At a time when economy in public expenditure is a paramount consideration, the Government would not be justified in continuing this service in view of the further substantial loss that would be incurred in the interests of relatively few producers.

Mr. Hurd: While fully accepting what my right hon. Friend has said, would it not be common sense to keep these grain silos and grain-drying facilities available for use in the 1956 harvest in case we get a return of the abominable weather of two years ago, when we shall be very sorry that grain is rotting because we have no way of getting it dried? Should it not be done in time for this harvest?

Mr. Amory: I agree that that is an important point. If there should be a very wet season and the risk of crops

generally being spoiled, I would consider what I could do in an emergency of that kind.

Mr. Champion: Are these silos kept on a care and maintenance basis so that they can be used in that way?

Mr. Amory: They can be used at comparatively short notice. They will be either on a care and maintenance basis or used for storing the national food stockpile.

Rabbits

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in which districts which were clear of rabbits last year they are now becoming re-established in considerable numbers; and to what extent farmers are co-operating to exterminate them in the rabbit clearance areas which he has designated.

Mr. Amory: Although a sprinkling of rabbits is now to be found in most areas, nowhere are they yet becoming reestablished in any considerable number. In statutory rabbit clearance areas, farmers generally, I am glad to say, are showing their willingness to co-operate in dealing with this pest.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his information is up to date? In the last three or four days I have heard of 12 rabbits being shot in North Hampshire and some more being run over by a motor car in Suffolk; it seems that they are coming back rather fast.

Mr. Amory: I think the numbers referred to would come within the definition of "sprinkling". At the same time, I am very anxious that I should know of any adverse developments in this matter, because, of course, the next few months will be of very great importance.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there is anything more cruel than the wilful introduction of myxomatosis, it is the wilful re-introduction of rabbits so that they may be destroyed ultimately by myxomatosis? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that wilful re-introduction is not taking place?

Mr. Amory: I should be sorry to know that it was taking place on a considerable
scale. I agree that we must do everything we possibly can now to ensure that the rabbit population does not build up.

Farm Institutes (Inquiry)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the general inquiry into farm institute education has commenced; and when he expects to issue a report.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 24th November last, in which I explained that I do not propose to appoint the committee of inquiry until the latter part of this year.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable feeling in the countryside about the number of empty places in the farm institutes and that this form of agricultural education is being neglected?

Mr. Amory: I deplore very much the fact that, as the hon. Member said, there are vacancies in the farm institutes. The vacancies are much greater in number in some parts of the country than in others, but for the reasons which I gave in the Answer to which I have referred, I believe that the right time to hold this inquiry will be to appoint a committee towards the end of the present year.

Potatoes

Mr. P. Bell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the present stocks of potatoes in the country.

Mr. Amory: Any statistical estimates of this kind would be unreliable; but for the time being there are plentiful supplies on offer at reasonable prices.

Mr. Bell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 150,000 tons of potatoes were imported in the middle of April just to avoid the Dutch embargo and that most of these are still available on the market for consumers?

Mr. Amory: There were very heavy imports during April.

Mr. Chetwynd: All going bad.

Mr. Amory: I do not think I can go beyond what I have said—that at the moment there are plentiful supplies available, but during the last two weeks

imports have been at a very low level indeed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the basis of inaccurate and out-of-date figures, he misled the public into believing that there was a real shortage of potatoes, whereas the shortage was quite artificial, as the recent importers of Dutch potatoes have found to their cost?

Mr. Amory: On the contrary. What I said has turned out to be exactly true. I advised the public to show restraint as long as the price remained very high. Now that the price has come down substantially, I have no doubt that the public will decide that the potato bought at its present price is good value.

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister aware that the "Fruit Trades Journal" says this week that a threat of price control would burst the bubble of high prices without damage to anybody?

Mr. Amory: I have given my answer to that on previous occasions.

Mr. P. Bell: l asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the average wholesale price of potatoes immediately before 14th April, 1956, and what is the present average wholesale price.

Mr. Amory: Information is not available to ascertain a single average price covering all markets, varieties, and quantities of imported and home-grown main-crop potatoes. Since 14th April, wholesale prices of home-grown potatoes have declined by up to £5 a ton; and of sound imported potatoes by up to £15 a ton.

Mr. Bell: Is not this fall in price largely attributable to the prompt action of the importers, at their own considerable risk of loss, in importing large quantities of potatoes before the foreign export market was closed down?

Mr. Amory: I think that those critics of the middle-men should remember that this is an instance where the merchant and middle-man, in the performance of his proper duty in ensuring as far as he can supplies to the consumer, does so sometimes at considerable financial risk.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that no


public money will be used to subsidise importers who have burnt their fingers in so importing?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that is likely to arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Cammell Laird Shipyard (Dispute)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the fact that after a strike lasting for more than six months, it has now been decided in the Cammell Laird shipyard who shall fix the metal sheets in the insulated spaces of ships under construction there; and if he will now indicate what steps are being taken to resolve the second part of the dispute, namely, as to who is to drill the holes in the sheets, so that work on the construction of the ships may finally proceed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): With regard to the first part of the Question relating to the fixing of metal sheets an award was recently made by an Arbitration Court appointed by my right hon. Friend. With regard to the second part of the Question relating to the drilling work, this is being dealt with under the industry's 1912 Agreement, as recommended by the Committee of Inquiry appointed by my right hon. Friend in March.

Sir F. Medlicott: Has my hon. Friend been able to find out the reasons why this apparently straightforward dispute has been able to be spun out for so many months? Is it not clear that if a dispute of this kind has proved so difficult, the problems of automation in this field may prove to be insurmountabe?

Mr. Carr: I can hardly agree with my hon. Friend's description of this as a straightforward dispute. On the contrary, it has been most complicated and difficult. I deplore as much as anybody the strike and the effect it has had, but it is no use imagining that this sort of dispute can be resolved in any other way than by agreement.

Standard Motor Company

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to see that industrial disputes of the kind which have arisen in the Standard Motor Company, Coventry, are avoided in the future.

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend has already said that the best way to avoid friction over the introduction of new machinery and new methods of working is for firms to consider in their planning from the beginning how this will affect their workers and bring them into early discussion. The personnel management advisers of my Ministry are available to help firms with advice on questions of consultation, planned recruitment, labour budgeting, re-training and transfers.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While I admit that the Standard Motor Company is a non-federated concern and that their policy has been equivalent to repudiation of the national agreement between the national engineering employers and the trade unions, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that clause 12 of that agreement states that when a depression in trade takes place a systematic short time shall be worked, where practicable, in preference to discharging men?
In view of the fact that we have had full employment for 15 years and all our fellow-countrymen have been making a great contribution, should it not be the duty of the Ministry to see that clause 12 applies in order that available employment may be spread over all those who have played a part in full employment?

Mr. Carr: It has long been the policy of my Ministry, under successive Governments, to allow these matters to be settled by the proper industrial machinery and by joint consultation between the two sides. I am not prepared to comment on the rights or wrongs of the discussions which are now going on at Standards, and I am sure that the whole House is glad that work has been resumed.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the conclusion to be drawn from this incident is that we must have a far greater degree of industrial planning in areas such as Coventry and Birmingham, where one great industry is now beginning to contract? Does he not also agree that from this angle it is


not sufficient to say that there are so many vacancies on the books, but that rather we must look at the industries which we can put into an area where a big industry is contracting?

Mr. Carr: As my right hon. Friend has emphasised several times recently, and as his predecessor did also on several occasions, we believe that early consultation between the trade unions and employers is essential.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the carrying out of agreements.

Mr. Carr: Certainly, and the carrying out of agreements. That is the basis of our industrial relations in this country.

Automation (Report)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on Automation.

Mr. Carr: The Report was published yesterday and copies are available in the Vote Office. We hope it will receive wide_ spread and careful study. As my right hon. Friend stated in answer to questions on 8th May, he intends to discuss the question of automation, in the light of the Report, with the National Joint Advisory Council.

Mr. Allaun: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he will, through the National Joint Advisory Council, encourage higher wages and shorter hours to absorb the vastly increased output from automation, and to avoid redundancy, as urged by the engineering unions? Also would he agree that the one thing these wonderful new machines cannot do is to buy a plate of fish and chips, a suite of furniture or a suit of clothing, and therefore that purchasing power must be increased?

Mr. Carr: I would rather allow all sides on the National Joint Advisory Council to express their own considered views on this Report. I am sure that they will be wise ones, and I am sure that with that consultation the new changes can be introduced into this country to the great benefit of all sections of the community.

Mr. Lee: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although we all wish to

congratulate the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on its fine technical Report, it does not really deal with the social and economic aspects of automation, which are the main consideration of Parliament? Could the Minister say whether there is likely to be a further inquiry by the Ministry or the Government in an attempt to give us a lead on the type of policy which the Government now propose to bring to us for dealing with the economic and social aspects of the coming automation?

Mr. Carr: I would like to join with the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. As he will know, at the end of its Report there is a list of subjects which the Department recognised should be further investigated. Some of those are being looked into already, and when the National Joint Advisory Council considers the Report at its next meeting, no doubt further thought will be given to any action which may be necessary.

Profit-sharing and Co-partnership Schemes

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now introduce legislation to facilitate the transfer of shares to employees in order that they may derive the fullest possible benefit from the development of automation.

Mr. Carr: No, Sir.

Mr. Wade: If there is to be cooperation between employers and employees in the development of automation, is it not reasonable that they should have every possible opportunity of sharing in any increased dividends that may accrue therefrom? Secondly, is the Minister aware that under certain provisions of the Finance Act there are undoubted discouragements to the transfer of shares to employees. Will he, therefore, consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing necessary Amendments in order to remove these obstacles to co-partnership?

Mr. Carr: The Government certainly wish to see the extension of profit sharing and co-partnership, but we believe that it must be done on a voluntary basis by the agreement of both sides. We think


that recent events have shown that companies are able to do it without any further legislation.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman, at least in the case of bonus share issues, consult the Chancellor with a view to the introduction of legislation to provide that a proportion of any bonus share issue goes to the workers in the industry concerned?

Mr. Carr: That is rather different from the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the benefits of automation, before they are shared out, have first to be obtained by selling the products of automation in foreign markets at lower prices and with better quality?

Mr. Bence: In giving consideration to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are millions of people in occupations which cannot gain the benefit of automation? Many of us feel that it would be unjust and unwise to foster the idea that those who employ automation should benefit from its profitability to the detriment of those who cannot make use of it.

Mr. Carr: It should certainly be the objective of any scheme of co-partnership or profit sharing to ensure that the benefits are shared properly, not only with the workers, the owners of the capital and the management, but also with the consumers.

MINISTERS (RECORDERSHIPS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether it is still the rule that Members of Her Majesty's Government should not hold any other paid appointment whilst enjoying the pleasure of Her Majesty's Seal of Office.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The general principles governing these matters have been well known for many years. They were last formulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in this House on 25th February, 1952.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but can the Prime Minister say whether or not that would

apply to such questions as the Foreign Secretary holding the Recordership for Wigan and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General holding the Recordership for Huddersfield and Hull, both of which carry, according to an Answer I received this week, salaries of £210 and £400 a year, respectively? Surely it is wrong that Ministers of the Crown should hold Recorderships, and receive payment for them, in addition to their Ministerial positions?

The Prime Minister: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information. I have ascertained that my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend, who held Recorderships, relinquished them immediately on assuming Ministerial office.

Mr. Lewis: Can I, in explanation, Sir, say to you and the House, that the Attorney-General said in reply to my Question, "appointments held". From that reply I naturally assumed, as my Question asked whether they were held, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said "They are held", that the Ministers concerned were still holding the positions.

The Prime Minister: I hope that now, in view of my answer, we can all live happily ever after.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will broadcast a statement on international events during the Whitsun Recess.

The Prime Minister: It is my earnest hope that there will not be any international events during the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister so sure of that? Is he aware that the recent unprovoked aggression on the part of Russia in reducing her arms cost has worried Wall Street and has created gloom and despondency throughout the whole non-civilised world, and does he not think that the country would like an interpretation of these events?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman cannot offer us anything more horrifying than that, I shall be content with the Whitsun Recess.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official Soviet announcement of a unilateral cut in armed forces, he will now propose to President Eisenhower, Marshal Bulganin and M. Mollet the holding of a high-level conference to remove the remaining obstacles to the conclusion of a treaty providing for a substantial degree of universal controlled disarmament.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The report of the United Nations Sub-Committee on the latest series of meetings at Lancaster House will be considered shortly by the Twelve-Power Disarmament Commission, on which the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union and France are represented. Her Majesty's Government favour full and proper use of this machinery which was specially created by the United Nations General Assembly to seek a solution of the disarmament problem.

Mr. Warbey: Whilst everybody must welcome unilateral arms cuts, especially if they are reciprocated, would the Prime Minister agree that it is far better to get agreed, inspected. controlled disarmament, and as the only serious obstacle to reaching agreement on conventional disarmament is the veto imposed by Dr. Adenauer, would not the Prime Minister take a personal initiative to overcome the deadlock?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am not aware of any veto issued by the German Chancellor on disarmament. On the other hand, I think we all accept that if we are to make progress in disarmament beyond a certain point, we have to get some relaxation of political tension at the same time.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is any attempt being made, through diplomatic discussions between the Prime Minister and the other heads of the four Governments concerned, to end the present disarmament deadlock?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows well that this Commission has to meet, and naturally we have ourselves been considering what constructive proposals we can make. I would rather not go further than that at the moment.

Mr. Bellenger: Irrespective of any agreement between the various nations for control of disarmament, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether this radical reduction in Russia's conventional armaments will have any effect on the plans of Her Majesty's Government in this respect?

The Prime Minister: I think that question should be put to the Minister of Defence. Of course we have reduced our armaments considerably, and are still doing so, and we welcome the Russian reduction. If it so happens that everybody catches this habit, we shall have no objection, but I think we are entitled to say that we were the first to start it..

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for the week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 29TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill, and of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Bill.
It is then proposed to afford an opportunity at about 10 o'clock for the completion of the Committee stage of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH MAY AND THURSDAY, 31sT MAY—Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill.
FRIDAY, 1ST JUNE—Government business will be taken, namely, the Third Reading of the Road Traffic Bill and Report and Third Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if negotiations about Singapore are resumed and there are developments, he will arrange for a statement to be made to the House before we adjourn tomorrow for the Whitsun Recess?

The Prime Minister: I have not had notice of that question. I know that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary


has had certain conversations, and I feel sure that, if he is in a position to do so, he will be happy to make a report tomorrow.

Mr. Bevan: Surely that would be desirable. We understand that discussions have been resumed, and it is hoped that they will reach a conclusion before we rise for the Recess. It might be convenient to the Government to make a statement on the matter either tonight or tomorrow.

The Prime Minister: If we make progress, as we hope to do, on the basis of the proposals that Her Majesty's Government have already put forward, we shall certainly be only too glad to report to the House where we stand.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that other proposals have been made which might result in a modification of the Government's position. Obviously, if negotiations are to be resumed only on the Government's proposals they would represent entirely abortive proceedings. We understand that there are new negotiations. If they break down, the House ought to be told why.

The Prime Minister: As I understand the position—I have followed it carefully —the negotiations are on the basis of the proposals that we have already made, and it is in relation to the proposals that we have already made that any new suggestion is proffered. As I have said, if, as a result of that, progress is made, my right hon. Friend or I will be very glad to make any report that we can.

Mr. Bevan: And if there is no progress?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to pin myself down to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if people are still talking—should it so happen; I do not know—it might be better not to do that.

Mr. Edelman: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the D.S.I.R. Report on Automation can be debated soon?

Mr. Butler: There is certainly no objection to its being debated on a Supply Day.

Mr. Marquand: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends of mine, now totalling more than 60, concerning the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development? When he is considering the business after our return from the Whitsun Recess, will he bear in mind that this subject has not been debated in the House for more than two years?

[That this House, while noting that Her Majesty's Government, in its reply to a questionnaire from the United Nations, has given general support to the proposal for the establishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development, regrets that the Government has not recognised that the making of contributions to such a Fund by the major nations of the world would in itself greatly contribute to the relaxation of world tension and the achievement of disarmament; and, therefore, calls upon the Government to announce that it will co-operate fully and immediately in the establishment of the Fund provided that the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will do the same.]

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that. For greater accuracy, I have a copy of the Motion with me. I cannot give any undertaking, but I will pay attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

OVERSEA CIVIL SERVICE(WHITE PAPER)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With the permission of the House, I will make a brief statement, as promised yesterday in reply to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), and for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), on Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service. Details of the proposals will be published in a White Paper this afternoon.
First of all, looking to the future, 1 am glad to announce that Her Majesty's Government have decided in principle to establish a central pool of officers with exceptional administrative or professional qualifications who will be employed by Her Majesty's Government in the United


Kingdom and made available as required on secondment to oversea Governments. Plans for the establishment of this pool are being worked out.
This is not, however, by any means the whole problem. Meanwhile, an urgent staffing position has arisen in the territories which comprise the Federation of Nigeria. We have given special thought to this. We realise the anxieties and uncertainties which affect the services there and wish to help the Governments to keep experienced staff who might otherwise retire under compensation schemes.
We are, therefore, prepared to accept certain important obligations towards the existing staffs. We propose, subject to the agreement of the Nigerian Governments, to introduce a scheme by which existing expatriate pensionable officers can transfer on certain conditions to a Special List of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service. Officers who are admitted to the Special List will thenceforth be in the service of Her Majesty's Government and seconded to the local Governments. The main features of the scheme will be set forth in the White Paper.
The foregoing arrangements underline the high importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the officers of the Nigerian services continuing to give their invaluable help to the countries they serve. The scheme will be in a form which will make it possible for similar arrangements to be applied to other territories as and when Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that circumstances make such action desirable.

Mr. Bevan: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we welcome his statement and look forward to an examination of the White Paper. Perhaps he will have a look at the arrangements which were made years ago between the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Health, by which very important improvements were made in the position of overseas doctors in the Colonial Service, whereby the pensions were made transferable and their service qualified for pension both here and abroad. We might extend that arrangement even more in this field.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Tilney: While all those on both sides of the House who believe not only that the Oversea Civil Service does a first-class job, but also in an expanding Commonwealth partnership, will congratulate my right hon. Friend on a most helpful statement, may 1 ask whether he can tell the House how soon the new central pool will be worked out and the numbers that are involved?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The central pool, which is the plan for future recruitment, will be set up as soon as possible. But it is a complicated technical exercise which cannot be completed in a few days or weeks. However, I can assure the House that we really mean business about it. As to the staffs now serving, that is a matter for negotiation with the Governments concerned. We intend to start this at the earliest possible moment. We have every intention of doing all we possibly can to give reality to the general undertakings which I have given.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in welcoming the Colonial Secretary's statement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Oversea Civil Service have been actively helping forward movements towards self-government, knowing that they will imperil their own employment and that they have done it very loyally? I have felt sorry for some of those whom I have met overseas. I welcome the statement and hope that it may have material results. Could the Government have another word for "expatriates"? It sounds to me as though an expatriate were some sort of enemy alien.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is precisely because of those people of whom the right hon. Member spoke so generously, but quite appropriately, that this statement has been made today. As to expatriates, that is not the only reason why I regret the loss from the House of a former burgess of Oxford University. I will do my best to make up for his absence.

Mr. Braine: In view of the special emphasis which my right hon. Friend has put on the situation in Nigeria, can he say whether these new arrangements are likely to apply very soon to officers serving in Malaya and in those territories


where constitutional developments are already arousing the anxieties of some officers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said in my statement, the scheme will be applicable to territories as and when Her Majesty's Government think it appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend will await the White Paper which is being issued this afternoon, which will give a good deal more material on the matter.

Mr. Usborne: In regard to Nigeria, for instance, does the statement mean that virtually all the English—[HON. MEMBERS: "British "]—now serving there as civil servants, or as expatriates of this country, can now become established on this new United Kingdom list? If they cannot all do that, can the Colonial Secretary explain what categories are excluded?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member will await the White Paper, he will see what I meant when I said, "in certain conditions", but it is certainly intended that the scheme should give assurance where it is most needed and also that the future, for which we are trustees, should be properly safeguarded.

Mr. N. Pannell: Can my right hon. Friend say which Governments will be responsible for the payment of salaries to the officers who transfer to the special list and what safeguards there will be for their pension rights?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The officers who transfer to the special list will be paid by the employment Governments, after our negotiations with them, at rates prescribed by Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with those Governments. As to safeguards for their pensions, Her Majesty's Government will pay the pensions and recover from the Governments in whose service the pensions were earned. Throughout my association and that of those whose experience goes back a good deal further than mine, I have had no reason to feel that any Government was likely to default on its obligations.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the statement will be welcomed not only there, but by African leaders like Dr. Azikiwe, of Enugu, who were as perturbed as we were about the possible anxieties of their new advisers in that new and young society?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful for the underlining of the fact that this is something which will be equally welcomed here and in the territories concerned.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 29th May.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADEPRACTICES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th May].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 22.—(RECONSTITUTION OFMONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 18, line 38, leave out from "reappointment" to the end of subsection (2).
Several Amendments to Clause 22 and Clause 23 are of major importance, but this is a comparatively minor Amendment. The main purpose of the Amendments to Clauses 22 and 23 which my hon. Friends and I have tabled, is to allow the name of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission to be changed to the simpler one of the Monopolies Commission, but to retain the powers of the Commission, at any rate for the time being.
If the President of the Board of Trade were asking only for a change of name, that would not be considered unreasonable. No one wishes to have confusion between the new Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission, which, in any case, is generally known as the Monopolies Commission. When we come to questions of resignation and reappointment, if the present proposals were only to enable members who are at present on the Monopolies Commission to be eligible for the new Restrictive Practices Court, we would see no objection to the proposal that they should automatically resign and be eligible for reappointment.
Unfortunately, it is clear that more than that is involved. The general issue of the two Clauses will be raised on a later Amendment, but, at the moment, I must deal only with what is in the second part of Clause 22 (2). The main reason for the Amendment is to ascertain the intention of the President of the Board of Trade. Assuming for the moment that members of the Commission will be called upon to resign and will then be eligible for reappointment, I should have thought that it would have

sufficed to have drawn the subsection as our Amendment leaves it. However, the subsection refers to Section 1 (3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, and there then arises the question whether the period of 12 years, which is the maximum, shall run from the date of reappointment, or from the date of the original appointment.
If it is thought fit that members who resign and are reappointed should be able to serve on the Commission, having already given valuable service, it is not necessary to introduce a provision the effect of which will be to prevent them from serving for more than 12 years from the date of their original appointment. It is to ascertain the intention of the President of the Board of Trade in inserting the second part of the subsection that I have moved the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, this is a relatively minor point. I gather that he has moved the Amendment primarily for an interrogatory purpose. As he and the Committee will be aware, the provisions of the Bill enable members of the Monopolies Commission to be reappointed. If they are reappointed, the period of their reappointment is as specified in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act, and it is true that the 12-year maximum will include their service both upon the old and the new Commission.
If there is to be a maximum period—and Parliament has already expressed its will about that, generally, in earlier legislation—it would seem appropriate that the 12-year period should apply specifically, whether a person has served that period all in one piece with the new Commission, or in two pieces, partly with the old and partly with the new Commission.
If the 12-year period were to run from the date of reappointment instead of the date of appointment, as at present contemplated, it would mean that members of the Commission reappointed in 1956, after, say, eight years' service, would serve for 20 years in all, which is a good deal beyond what would be open to any newly appointed member, and well beyond the original contemplation of Parliament. In those circumstances, without wishing to


be at all dogmatic, it would seem that the solution which is contained in the Bill is the appropriate one.
For the comfort of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, I would point out that the three members of the existing Commission with the longest existing service would not complete 12 years' service till 1960, so that if it were desired to reappoint a substantial number of the members of the existing Commission there would be no question of this 12-year limitation causing there to be a lack of experience on the part of members eligible for service upon the new Commission. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied, and that we may pass on to what he has correctly described as the major issue of the Clause.

Mr. Wade: I have made it clear that, upon the main issue, I am not satisfied with the provisions of this Clause and Clause 23, but I have ascertained what I wished to know upon this point, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).

The Chairman: I think that the Committee could discuss, together with this Amendment, the Amendments to Clause 23, page 19, line 25, to leave out subsection (1), and in line 33, to leave out "such reference as aforesaid" and insert:
reference made to the Monopolies Commission after the commencement of this Act under section two of the Act of 1948

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir Charles. That arrangement suits us, because it gives us an opportunity to begin with a debate upon what is probably the most important issue with which we have to concern ourselves today, namely, the future of the Commission. Following that debate, we need not spend a great deal of time upon individual Amendments.
The purpose of these Amendments is really to ask the President to look again at Part III of the Bill. We are now considering the future of the Commission not in the proper context of what is needed to deal with monopolies—with the growth and concentration of industry, and

so on—but in the narrow context of a Bill aimed only at taking away from the Commission part of its work. We suggest that it is wrong that we should have a hurried debate this afternoon. It must inevitably be hurried—

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Why?

Mr. Darling: It must be an inadequate discussion because—unless we come to it again tomorrow—we have not suspended the Standing Order today and we shall have to have an inadequate discussion of the question, because Parliamentary procedure will not allow us to go on debating tomorrow, and some time after the Recess, the future of the Monopolies Commission. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for this hurried debate; I am sure that he would have preferred a wider discussion of this subject.
One of the things which cause me some misgiving is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are based upon an assumption that the legal procedure of the Bill will work satisfactorily—in other words, that it will be quite satisfactory if we take away from the Commission the whole of that part of its work which deals with those restrictive practices which will come within the purview of the Restrictive Practices Court if the Bill is passed in its present form.
We take a different view. We say that the Commission should be left alone, so that it will be big enough, adequately staffed, competent and able to deal with many restrictive practices which may receive the approval of the Court. If these practices are taken away from the purview of the Commission it may be that no one will be able to keep a proper supervisory control over the agreements concerned.
There is another good reason why we do not want to see the Commission weakened. With the possible concentration of industry as a result of automation, a permanent body is needed to examine industrial and trading arrangements, a body which may go beyond the terms laid down in the 1948 Act, which was somewhat limited. Many of the possible industrial developments may have a monopoly character about them or, although not running counter to the conception of competition contained in the


Bill, nevertheless ought to be examined and reported upon by some body so that we can see how the new technical developments in industry are working out.
The Bill removes from the purview of the Commission only the examination of restrictive practices. We admit that that is a fairly big field, but, even without going into the wider realm which I suggested a moment ago, many activities which come within the scope of the 1948 Act should continue to be dealt with by the Commission. We have certainly not exhausted the examination of a single-firm monopolies, many of which have not been reported to the Board of Trade for examination, probably because, at the moment, there are no serious complaints about their working. But that does not mean that complaints will not be received in the future. We feel that it is wrong to weaken the Commission merely because one part of its work has been taken away. We do not think it right to assume that the field of its activities must necessarily be greatly reduced as a consequence.
There are also developments which may be promoted by the Bill itself which should be examined. The Bill may tend to cause the formation of what have been referred to as "inter-connected bodies corporate ",for the purposes of getting round its provisions. That tendency may be much bigger in its scope than has been suggested by hon. Members opposite. If that is so, and this tendency becomes fairly widespread, these interconnected bodies corporate—having themselves introduced a new element into the field of monopolies and restrictive practices—should be examined. We suggest that there ought to be a competent body to deal with that examination.
4.0 p.m.
To us, there is a weakness in the Court procedure on which I have already touched, but which I think it is important to mention again. Some of the agreements which get the approval of the Court would, of course, come up for examination by the Court afterwards for any change in the agreement, but it may be that the Court, giving a judgment based only on the legal considerations laid down in the Bill, might allow some trade agreement with restrictive practices in it to continue and, subsequent to the Court giving its approval, it may be seen —as was not seen before when the issue

was before the Court—that the agreement is far more restrictive than the Court thought possible.
In those circumstances, we need a body outside the Registrar and his arrangements, and outside the Court, to look at those agreements, and to make sure that they are actually working in the public interest, in the event of consumers and other bodies complaining that the Court has allowed restrictive practices to go on, and that those practices have been given the approval of the Court, when, in fact, the effect of the practices has been contrary to the public interest.

Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: I do not want to interrupt the train of thought of the hon. Member, but would not the result of his suggestion be that if an agreement were found to be much more restrictive for some reason or other than the Court originally contemplated, then, in accordance with his suggestion, it would be twice reviewed—once by the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and once by the Monopolies Commission? Surely that would be quite impossible.

Mr. Darling: I may be wrong about my interpretation of the Bill, but I cannot see that in all the circumstances the review of the Court would happen so automatically as the hon. Member has suggested.
I was coming to a further matter. Many of the agreements which will be approved by the Court will be agreements which are all right in themselves. In other words, we may get a group of firms in an industry with a whole series of agreements. As I read the Bill, each separate agreement will be examined by the Court, but not the whole of those agreements together. There will not be a review of an industrial organisation and the effect of the whole of the workings of that industry on the public interest. The Court will merely examine one agreement and then another agreement each by itself. That may be all right.
We may get decisions from the Court which prove that certain of those agreements are in the public interest. Taken by itself, each agreement may appear to be all right but, when all are taken together, those agreements, which got the approval of the Court, may add up to restrictive practices which ought not to continue. I may be wrong, but so far as


I can see the Court would not be in a position to review the whole industrial set up in that wider context.
In circumstances like that, we suggest that even the effect of the working of the Court may require examination by a competent Monopolies Commission. Already, the example of the petrol companies has been given and repeated in this Committee several times. I shall repeat it again, but very briefly. Here, the example is quite appropriate. We may have a situation in which the oil companies now complaining about the exclusive arrangements which the petrol companies are making might get together with the manufacturers of other motor car accessories in a defensive agreement against the big petrol companies. That agreement may have the approval of the Court because it is a defensive agreement.
That may be satisfactory from many points of view, but the real cause of the trouble, the individual actions of the petrol companies, would not be examined by the Court. As far as I know, not one petrol company has more than a third of the country's trade in petrol and it may be that the action of the individual petrol companies would not be examined by the Monopolies Commission either.
I do not want to go into all the suggestions we would make if we had a proper discussion on the future of the Monopolies Commission and about extending its scope, but, obviously, cases are coming along in which the scope of the Commission ought to be extended. This, we think, is one of them. We are suggesting only that it would be wrong at this stage, without a proper examination of the work that someone has to do in this field, to limit the Monopolies Commission in the way suggested in the Bill.
There is another matter in connection with the relationship of the Court and the Monopolies Commission to which I wish to refer. So far as I can see, we are making no provision for anybody to review the working of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed with us that in this Bill we are really stepping out into the dark. We do not know what is to happen. We do not know how many agreements have to be dealt with by the Court, or the kind of decisions the Court will take on purely legal questions. We

do not know whether it will work satisfactorily or not, but in this field we suggest that there should be a body with the necessary background, the necessary body of knowledge which it has itself built up, to be in a position to advise us about the workings of the Act if the Bill goes through in its present form. We think a review of the Court and the workings of the Court and the Act ought to be undertaken by the Monopolies Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are worried about the references which have already been made to the Monopolies Commission. We appreciate that the reference about common prices will now fall by the way because the Court will be dealing with common prices in regard to individual agreements, but other matters which are left to the discretion of the President to decide whether they shall continue or not are very important matters. There is the question of electrical generating machinery, for instance.
I do not know whether I would fall foul of some of my hon. Friends if I said that a case could be made out for level tendering in that industry, but not in the clumsy and crude way in which the electrical manufacturers are doing it now. I should like more information about the electrical manufacturers' industry's arrangements to be made public, so that we can see the matter in its proper form and against the background of the whole of our industrial organisation, the export trade, and so on—the whole of our economic necessities.
We should like to be told far more than we have been told up till now about the intentions of the President with regard to agreements and references which have already been referred to the Monopolies Commission. The ten references sent to the Monopolies Commission certainly do not exhaust the complaints which have been made by the public, by consumers, about manufacturers and trading organisations. They are complaints which we think ought to lead to some examination by the Monopolies Commission—complaints, for instance, about flour milling, margarine manufacturers, the makers of cast-iron pipes and cement pipes, and paper makers.
I see no reason at all why the Monopolies Commission should not be retained


in something like its present form in order that those examinations can be made and that there will be no cutting down, or slowing down, or cutting off of the work of the Commission. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied from the cursory examination he has made that the industries about which complaints have been made by customers should not be referred to the Commission. He may be satisfied that everything they are doing is in the public interest, but we want something more than the personal satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman.
We want far more information about industry than we get now. There is far too much secrecy in British industry. There is probably more secrecy than there is in any other western industrialised country. There is far more secrecy than there is in the United States.

Mr. Robert Edwards: Or monopoly, either.

Mr. Darling: That is perfectly true, of course.
We want a permanent fact-finding body —not an elaborate Civil Service organisation but a body of people who can do this job of examining and finding out what is going on in British industry—not only concerned with monopoly practices but with any complaints that are made; with any need, for instance, to examine the workings of industry, the need coming from any quarter. For instance, we have representatives of textile constituencies complaining about the importation of cheap cotton goods. There is very little interest created in that problem. It is a real problem, but there is very little interest because we do not have any public examination of it. There are matters like that which require an examining body.
In the development of automation which may well lead to a greater concentration of industry—in this field one cannot foretell the consequences—we suggest that there ought to be a body to keep the technical developments under review. Most hon. Members would agree that it is clear that in these technical developments the Government will have to play a part in guiding the improvements, the new technical processes and all their consequences, in the public interest.
We want to know who will provide the facts on which we in the House of Commons can base our judgments. We cannot take the one little case of Standards by itself; we have to have a much wider examination in the sphere of automation. Whether it is a widened Monopolies Commission or some other body which makes the examination, it must be made and it should be a permanent, a continuous, examination. We suggest that in the Commission we have the basic organisation to do the work, and that to weaken it at this stage when so much in the future is obscure to us in the industrial field, is a really deplorable move.
We would point out that the President of the Board of Trade has admitted during debates on the Bill that he is looking into the dark. No one can tell how the Court will function. No one can tell how this concentration of industry which I have been talking about will work out. Although the right hon. Gentleman shares our common ignorance in these matters, he is going to be adventurous enough to leap into the dark and to say, "You can cut down the Monopolies Commission; we will not need it in its present form, and everything will work out all right ". We think that he should restrain himself.
All we ask is that he postpones a decision to weaken the Commission until we have had time in the House of Commons thoroughly to examine the future of the Commission in this wider context that I have been talking about. The right hon. Gentleman may find that he must, in the context of the Bill, remove the reference to restrictive practices from the Commission, but we ask him not to go any further than that. We ask him to keep the Commission as it is until we have had a real opportunity thoroughly to examine the situation. He will have time for reflection when he returns from Capri, and I hope that he will undertake, after what may very well be a well-deserved holiday, to look at Part III of the Bill again and to postpone any action which will weaken and hamstring the Commission.

4.15.p.m

The Chairman: With these three Amendments, it might also be convenient to discuss the Amendment in the name


of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) at the same time. It deals with more or less the same point.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Are you referring, Sir Charles, to the one in page 19, line 24, at the end to add:
and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
I think that that is rather a different point.

The Chairman: No. I am referring to the one in line 16, to leave out subsection (5).

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I think that that would be convenient.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), 1, also, am against hurried debates, especially on such an important matter as this. I am all in favour, when it can be arranged, of more leisurely debates. Therefore, I suggest that it is a disadvantage, because of the other considerations involved, that the Committee should be asked to discuss this subject under anything like pressure of time.
There is a very short and convenient course open to the President of the Board of Trade which would remove all our anxieties and meet the detailed criticism which my hon. Friend has made. I suggest in all seriousness that, here and now, the right hon. Gentleman should scrap the whole of Part III of the Bill. That would be the proper, the courageous and the correct decision for him to take.
He has, in fact, been exhorted to take that step by organs of the Press which normally support the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Part III is quite unnecessary to Parts I and II. On the whole, subject to the criticisms we have made, we have welcomed Parts I and II. We have tried to improve the Bill, and we believe that we have by detailed amendment. But Part III is a reactionary step which is completely out of keeping with the right hon. Gentleman's professed anxiety to take a great step forward in his political career by stamping out restrictive practices and monopolies.
We regard Part III as not only unnecessary and mischievous but reactionary. We ask him either to scrap it or to postpone it. We say that he has got the Restrictive Practices Court and he has got Clauses 19 and 20 which abolish collective resale price maintenance. Why tack on Part III and curtail the functions of the Commission? I do not think that there is any necessary clash between the two, but if there is it is within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid it. As the Economist pointed out in its article, the President of the Board of Trade can control the activities of the Commission; he can decide what matters are referred to it and what are not. He can avoid any clash of jurisdiction.
As my hon. Friend said, it may well prove that there yet remains a most fertile field of inquiry and useful activity for the Commission, but, if we are wrong about that, then a decision to dismantle it later on can be taken in the light of events. Why take that step now? Why sabotage what has proved a most useful fact-finding piece of machinery. Is it that the President of the Board of Trade is afraid of what future Governments may want to do? Is it that he is not sufficiently confident about the activities of his Court?
After all, the right hon. Gentleman has shown in his speeches that whereas in Parts I and II we are, as we hope, setting up some machinery which will deal effectively with certain restrictive trade practices, we are not thereby doing anything whatever to stop the evils of monopoly which afflict—and in the future unless checked will continue to afflict—hamper and hamstring British industry in the great competitive efforts it has to make with growing rivalry from other countries.
Some of us fear, and a great deal of the Press fears—and it is quite likely—that one of the possible effects of the attempt in Part I of the Bill to stop restrictive practices and to stop the collective enforcement of various methods of resale price maintenance, will in itself tend to produce monopoly. Therefore, we want to retain this machinery, which has proved so effective. I do not think it has proved as effective as it might be, but it is better than nothing.
We ask the President: why introduce this Clause in Part Ill to cut it down? Do not let there be any doubt about this Clause, because it both limits the numbers of the Commission and it restricts the kind of reference that can be made to it, which will, in effect, destroy a great deal of such rather limited efficacy as it has had in the past. It is of great value in finding facts. Even though some of the Reports made by the Commission have not been acted upon, they have, at any rate, produced a great deal of valuable information, which has directed the minds of hon. Members and of the public to the kind of evil which we are all anxious should be avoided in future.
Our request to the President is that he should not merely accept this Amendment, and even this series of Amendments which we are discussing, but that he should take the bold and courageous decision of postponing the whole operation of Part III, retaining the existing size, functions and powers of the Monopolies Commission, so that, at any rate, in what is a very novel and experimental field, we may see how things work out with regard to registration and the activities of the court, and yet we may have in reserve, if wanted, the powers of the Monopolies Commission.
If they prove unnecessary, they need not be utilised in full. The cost is not of any great significance, and this country is not too well organised with statistical information, as compared with the United States. Let us not scrap what is a useful piece of existing machinery, because if, contrary to what we think, in years to come it proves unnecessary, it will be quite easy for a subsequent Government to change it.
I earnestly ask the President to respond to the appeals made to him on this Amendment, and to bear in mind what not only the Economist but the Financial Times said to him about this matter, and on reflection, to decide that the whole of Part III should be scrapped.

Sir Leslie Plummer: On previous occasions, when we have been discussing this Bill. I have referred to the work of the Select Committee on Estimates, and I make no apology for going back to the Report published early in 1953 on its investigation into the work of the Monopolies Commission.
Sometimes, I think that those hon. Members who devote these long and tedious afternoons to the work of the Select Committee on Estimates do not get their work fully recognised. When the Reports appear, they are like stones dropped into a well; they make a slight "plop," but nobody knows what has happened. On this occasion, the Select Committee provided what I think was an admirable Report, and it then found that the Commission, which was entitled at that time to have a membership of not less than four and not more than 10, which is what is proposed in subsection (3) of Clause 22, was inadequate for the job.
The Select Committee reported that, in its view, the size of the Commission should be increased, as, indeed, it was increased. The reason why the Select Committee made that recommendation was because it was satisfied on the evidence which it had taken from industry itself that it was absolutely essential, if the Commission was to do its work properly, that it should pay a great deal of attention and devote a great deal of time to making inquiries. In the Report itself, it is stated, and I quote:
Evidence was given by representatives of the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association and the British Ironfounders' Association, both of which have been the subjects of reports by the Commission, to the effect that it would be wrong for the Commission not to make an exhaustive and careful inquiry, and that industry would demand a thorough inquiry".
That is to say, industry itself wants to see that the Commission should be so managed or staffed that it would be able to do a proper job. The members of the Select Committee asked whether this thorough examination could be made if more salaried staff were appointed, and it was made clear that the bottleneck was at the top in the Commission itself.
I think the President has to make up his mind either to leave the Monopolies Commission in operation as an active investigating body, so staffed at the very top with commissioners as to be able to do an efficient job or to wind the thing up altogether. The worst thing that could happen would be for the Commission to have to revert to the position that existed in 1953, when, because it was inadequately staffed with commissioners, it was taking an inordinate time to present


Reports. The Commission was on occasions presenting Reports that were out-of-date, because the industries which it had been investigating had changed their practices and technique. If we were to go back to that, it would be to deny the value of the advice given in 1953 by a Committee the chairman of which was a member of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. I think it would be a highly retrogressive step, which could only lead in the end to the Commission being held in such, I will not say contempt, but light regard, that its work would be completely ineffectual.
For that reason, I hope he can accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, and that Part III of the Bill will be withdrawn. I hope at least that he will accept the Amendment, because that would give him power to retain the Commission and its staff with its present powers.

Mr. J. Grimond: This Clause reconstitutes, but does not abolish, the Monopolies Commission, but I think there is no doubt that it does limit its effectiveness, because as the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has just said, it will reduce its size. It will also have that effect because it will prevent any reference to groups within the Commission.
It is surely true that one of the difficulties in which the Commission has been involved has been the delay and the time which it takes the Commission to investigate various practices. It is not as if, even now, the Commission was, so to speak, ahead of its work, and even with the reduction which I agree must be made in its work by this Bill, which will remove a great deal of work, there would still be ample to occupy a Commission of the present size.
Secondly, this is a rather ill-defined field, as we all agree. It is not as if a new court were going to deal with a well-established corpus of law; it will have to exercise its judgment in an ill-defined field. Thirdly, for that reason, too, it would be worth while for the President to keep the Commission at its present strength and to enable it if necessary still to sit in groups.
I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) in suggesting that the Commission should

rove over the whole field of industry. I am not clear whether a Commission set up to examine monopolies could possibly examine automation and the troubles of the Lancashire textile trade. The members are not necessarily qualified in those fields. I regard the Commission as having a rather more limited scope, but, nevertheless, its scope is wide enough to occupy its attention in its present form. It could give the President very useful advice on collusive tendering. I think it would be a pity if this large body of experience were to be denied to the President. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this will still be available. He may be quite satisfied that he can give sufficient directions for the Commission to have sufficient work to do but we need reassurance on that point.
4.30 p.m.
There are questions concerned with oligopoly—cases in which the market is shared among a few big firms, although none controls more than one-third. That is unexplored territory where, I should have thought, the Commission could have done a great deal more useful work. Lastly, there are the new developments. There will be attempts to get round the Act and there will be the unforeseen results of the Act itself. There will be the growth of monopolies by industries seeking to establish what I would call restrictive practices by creating a monopoly within the industry. There, I should have thought that the Commission could have found plenty to do.
For my part, therefore, I ask the President to see whether he is certain that it is right to reduce the size of the Commission or to give the impression that its powers will be limited in any way.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee has heard a variety of contributions on what has been described as the most important matter which will come before the Committee in its consideration of the Bill this afternoon. It may therefore be of some assistance if I intervene at this stage. I cannot altogether dismiss the pessimistic possibility that I may fail in my effort completely to carry conviction to the breasts of all hon. Members, but it will of course be possible for my right hon. Friend to intervene at a later stage to deal with any further points, if that seems desirable to the Committee and to the progress of these proceedings.
In the Amendments which are being taken together, we are concerned with the size and the scope of the future Monopolies Commission. These are, of course, inter-related subjects, and it will be agreed that the size of the Commission should depend upon what is the appropriate scope of its functions. In effect, in our approach to Part III of the Bill, we have sought to follow three principles, and to apply them. In the first place, we have sought to apportion the work between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission on a logical basis —that is to say, seeking to give to the Court jurisdiction where the issue is clearly justiciable.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Not that.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "clearly justiciable" That is exactly what we have been gainsaying all through the Bill.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Parliament has made up its mind on that point in a sense contrary to the advice tendered by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am sure that I should be incurring the rebuke of the Chair if I sought to reopen the issues from which we have already parted. We, at any rate, took the view that certain issues were justiciable, and Parliament has now decided in that sense.
In our approach to the problem, therefore, we sought to give to the Court the issues which were justiciable—and I will leave out the word "clearly",in deference to the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and in applying that principle the Restrictive Practices Court is seized of restrictive agreements affecting the home market which are justiciable. The Monopolies Commission will have referred to it agreements exclusively affecting the export market and monopolies of scale or single-firm monopolies, as they have been described.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) spoke of weakening the Commission. but I must start by reminding the Committee that in respect of the functions which are allotted to the Monopolies Commission there is no weakening at all, because those duties and those functions will be as strong

under the new procedure as under the 1948 Act. Certain matters are removed from the Commission's jurisdiction, but in respect of the jurisdiction remaining to it there is no weakening.
The second principle which has guided us in regard to Part III is the desirability of avoiding any clash of jurisdiction between the Court, on the one hand, and the Commission, on the other hand. The third principle is to seek to suit the size of both Court and Commission to the expected volume of work with which they will have to deal.
I ask the Committee to say that those three principles are perfectly logical and proper ones; and when they are applied they lead one to a system such as that which we seek to set up in Part II1 of the Bill. Clause 22, with which the first Amendments deal, implements the third principle by reconstituting the Monopolies Commission on the smaller scale suitable to its smaller functions, and Clause 23, which is the subject of the other Amendments, implements the other two principles of apportioning the duties and avoiding a clash of jurisdiction.
The way in which we have sought to apply the principle of avoidance of a clash of jurisdiction is by the subsection which one of the Amendments would omit—Clause 23 (1), which excludes from the jurisdiction of the Commission registrable agreements under Part 1 of the Bill, because those are the agreements which will come before the Restrictive Practices Court. In the application of the principle of avoiding a possible clash of jurisdiction, they must therefore be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Monopolies Commission.
In regard to that principle, it is possible to argue that such matters are better dealt with by a judicial system or it is possible to argue that they would have been better dealt with by the Monopolies Commission; but I cannot believe that there is any force in an argument that they should be dealt with by both simultaneously, or that each should have a jurisdiction which can overlap the other.
If we accepted the arguments and the Amendments of hon. Members opposite, we should abandon the principle of seeking to avoid the clash of jurisdiction, because we should remove the safeguard which at present exists in Clause 23 (1) against avoiding that clash. It has been


argued by hon. Members in a persuasive way that there is still a field of activity for the Monopolies Commission in the matters which will come before the Court. The hon. Member for Hillsborough went particularly wide and said that a general supervisory power should be left in the Monopolies Commission.
I should like to put a specific question to the House. Suppose the Monopolies Commission were left with a supervisory function in regard to agreements which had already been dealt with or could be dealt with by the Restrictive Practices Court. If the Restrictive Practices Court finds that those agreements are contrary to the public interest, it prohibits them. in that case there would be nothing left for the Commission to supervise or investigate. If, on the other hand, the Restrictive Practices Court allows them to continue it means that those agreements have passed the exacting tests of Clause 16 and have been declared to be not contrary to the public interest.
If the Monopolies Commission should then be given the power to supervise, what is to be the effect of that supervision? Is it to prohibit agreements which have just emerged from the exacting tests of the Court as being not contrary to the public interest? There could not be a clearer case of clash of jurisdiction than that.
The other alternative, however, is that its supervision would be of a purely academic character, and that the Commission would have no effective power or be allowed to take any course of action arising out of the supervision. In the one case there is a clear clash of jurisdiction, and in the second case the Monopolies Commission would be charged with a duty which was academic and could not lead to any useful result.

Mr. G. Darling: Surely the Monopolies Commission would deal only with cases that come within that category at the request of the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade would not make the request unless it was seen that something had gone wrong. As it is, as I have said, a group of agreements may go through which are inter-related; each one may be all right but their working together may be all wrong. In such circumstances —this may be purely hypothetical, I

agree, but it might prove to be a real situation—we think that the Board of Trade should have power to ask the Monopolies Commission to look at the matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I cannot for a moment agree with him that that would be a suitable solution for the sort of problem which he envisages in a hypothetical case.

Mr. Darling: There is no other solution.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not say that there is no other solution. In Clause 17 he will find power for the Registrar to make application to the Restrictive Practices Court for reconsideration of the case and, if necessary, for a variation of the order upon grounds of change of circumstances; and the sort of matters which the hon. Member has in mind would, I think, come within the ambit of that Clause.

Mr. Darling: No, they would not.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that they would. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they would not we can look at that point again during a further stage of the Bill.
What I do say to the hon. Member and to the Committee is that the remedy must be sought along the lines of referring the matter, if necessary, to the Court. It must not be sought along the lines of seeking to involve my right hon. Friend, through the Monopolies Commission, in a clash of jurisdiction. The Committee will also have in mind the fact that although in this country we do not operate the constitutional doctrine of a complete separation of powers—because the Executive and Parliament are inter-related—we, nevertheless, do operate the separation of the judiciary from the Executive. It is, therefore, vital to find the solution within that principle which I expressed earlier—the avoidance of a clash of jurisdiction.

Mr. Darling: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He is confining his answer to a very narrow point. In this case we were merely asking that the Monopolies Commission should inquire and present us with the facts—tell us the story—and nothing more.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: 1 do not think that a body such as the Monopolies Commission can be used simply on that reviewing basis to assist the Registrar—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to say.
The whole of his argument really rested on the desirability of extending the scope of the Monopolies Commission far beyond what it was under the 1948 Act. He views the future of the Monopolies Commission as being that of what he called a permanent fact-finding body which would be concerned not only with monopolies but with such matters as automation and textiles. That is not a function for the Monopolies Commission. The function of reviewing the general working of the Act, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and the function of reviewing the general considerations relating to the advent and implementation of automation are the concern of Parliament, and cannot properly he delegated to other bodies.
In my submission we have to look at this matter in a somewhat narrower context, as, I think, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) agreed. He agreed that the Monopolies Commission should not be so extended as to have those wide functions, but he suggested that there were still functions which it could usefully perform. From that he argued that the Commission should have a larger basis than that which we are giving to it. He mentioned collusive tendering as an example. In so far as collusive tendering is a factor in the export field, that, of course, would be within the ambit of the Monopolies Commission according to the present drafting of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) took a rather different view of that. He suggested—or rather he began by suggesting—that we should be wise to scrap the whole of Part III. He evidently did not find his own argument so very convincing, because the conclusion at which he arrived at the end of his speech was that we ought to postpone the operation of Part III.
He prayed in aid the argument of the Economist; that is to say, that the clash of jurisdiction could be avoided by executive action. I have great respect for

the opinions of the Economist on this as on other matters, and I am very grateful for the general support that it has given to the Government point of view—in common with other authoritative and informed newspapers—in regard to this Bill. But on this particular point I must dissent from what the Economist says, because if executive action is to exclude the Part I agreements from the Bill then, of course, it is much better to do it precisely by Statute than to leave it to be dealt with haphazardly or imprecisely by executive action. If, on the other hand, executive action is not to include the Part I agreements it meets with the same difficulties as do the suggestions propounded by the hon. Member for Hills-borough because a clash of jurisdiction could not be avoided.
Having said that, I should like to assure the Committee that in Part III of this Bill there is no intention to dismantle the Commission—to use the language of the hon. Member for Islington. East—and, quite clearly, there is no intention to leave it as an inactive or inefficient body, to use the language of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). The difficulties to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred—the 1952 difficulties—were, of course, cured by the 1953 Act, and the machinery then set up, as qualified for the more restricted scope of activity, will ensure that the Commission remains as an efficient, active and important body.

Sir L. Plummer: How does the hon. and learned Gentleman know this? Is he not guessing? He does not know what work is going to he given to the Monopolies Commission. He has a guess that the staff will be sufficient on the basis of the Clause. Suppose the work is considerable. Is he then to come back to the House and ask for another Amendment to increase the staff? Would it not be better to have a permissive figure which would cover all eventualities?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, it is not the case that we do not know the type of work that the Commission is going to do. I have already sought to define what the scope of function would be under the provisions of this Bill—the monopolies of scale together with these exclusively export agreements. The monopolies of scale, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) will see, include


the interconnected bodies corporate to whose activities he referred. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Section 3 (1, a) of the 1948 Act he will see that they are included.
We have at present fifteen members on the Monopolies Commission with its present jurisdiction, although the maximum figure is twenty-five. We think that the figure of ten as suggested in the Bill, with a, so to speak, permanent and professional chairman, is the right figure for the more limited but still important functions which the Commission will have to discharge. I would not leave the Committee in any doubt about the fact that we regard the functions which the Monopolies Commission will discharge under this Measure as important functions and that for that purpose it will require to be, as I am sure it will be, an active and efficient body.
We have thought much about this, but we have come to the conclusion that in order to implement the principles of which I have spoken, it is necessary to take away from the Monopolies Commission any jurisdiction over the agreements which will come to the Court, and, that being the case, the Monopolies Commission should be somewhat reduced in size to that which we have defined in Clause 22.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am unconvinced by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. He is, of course, weakening the Commission in this sense, that he is reducing the number of members and he is curtailing their power to sit simultaneously in more than one group. He says that he is doing this because he believes that the work which they will have to do will be very much reduced.
In the first place, even if he were right in that opinion, it would surely be wiser to refrain from making this curtailment by Act of Parliament. If it turns out that the Government's opinion is wrong, there will be a difficulty in that the Commission will not be able to do the work unless an amending Act is passed. If, on the other hand, the Government took our advice and at least left themselves with these powers, the worst that could happen would be that the Commission

would not have a full-time job to do, and that surely would be a much lesser evil.
But leaving that aside, it seems to me that there are some reasons for thinking that the Government are wrong in their opinion that there would not be enough work for the present Commission to do. First of all, there are all the interconnected bodies corporate. There are many interconnected bodies corporate in this country, and practically none of them have yet been investigated. Secondly, in my opinion, there are going to be even more interconnected bodies corporate as a result of this Bill, for reasons which we have stated before and need not go into now. Thirdly, it seems to me that there are certain general subjects for investigation, partly of a fact-finding kind but, no doubt, also involving recommendations in certain cases which the Commission could perfectly well carry through simultaneously with the working of the Court.
I agree that it would be foolish to have the Commission carrying out an inquiry into precisely the same agreement in the same industry as was coming before the Court. But if our advice were accepted, it would be open to the President of the Board of Trade to refer to the Commission some general question where he thought and where he was satisfied that there would not be a clash of jurisdiction. If that were not so, clearly he would not make such a reference. We cannot be quite certain today that such a situation will not arise. If it did not arise, and we left the Bill as we want it, the President of the Board of Trade would refrain from making the reference, and that is all the mischief that would follow.
May there not be other subjects suitable for investigation which are not within the category of interconnected bodies corporate and do not involve the agreements or the arrangements which would bring them within the main part of this Bill? To give an example that comes into my head, we have had mentioned at one stage of our debate what the Americans are supposed to call conscious parallelism—the case where three or four firms act in the same way. There is no evidence of an agreement or arrangement, but in fact it has the effect of a monopoly.
I do not know, but that may be a very useful thing to have investigated in this country. For all I know, there are other


instances where the Commission would do useful work. For all those reasons, it seems to us that, as far as we know now, there is plenty of work for the Commission to do and therefore we think it would be wiser to leave it with full powers and not cut it down by Act of Parliament at this stage.

Mr. Wade: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we are dealing with the size and scope of the Commission, but I think that he and his right hon. Friend have been too logical in reaching a decision to cut down the Monopolies Commission. 1 will give my reasons as briefly as I can.
As I listened to the debate on Part I of the Bill, I came to the conclusion that a number of smaller fish may well be caught by the new net, but it seems highly probable that some of the larger fish will escape. Again, on Part II, I came to the conclusion that it was probably the larger concerns which would derive most benefit from the new procedure. It may be that that was inevitable once this method of dealing with restrictive practices had been embarked upon, but it seems all the more important that we should be very chary about cutting down the size and scope of the Monopolies Commission. The day may come when we may find it reasonable that the Monopolies Commission should be reduced in size, but I do not think that day has yet come.
I suggest that these provisions are both premature and unnecessary. The President of the Board of Trade in advocating the earlier provisions said that we must obtain a balance—a compromise between those who wish rapidly to get rid of more restrictive practices and those who believe sincerely in maintaining them and who wish to have every opportunity of putting forward their case for their retention. The President of the Board of Trade did not wish this balance to be upset.
There is no question of retaining any delicate balance. It would not upset the procedure which has been set up in Parts I and II if we did not approve of Part III. Part III deals with the discretionary powers of the Minister, and the only reason I can see for this cutting down of the Monopolies Commission at present is legislative tidiness. I think the answer was made by the Economist, which has

already been referred to. These are the words used in the Economist of 12th May, 1956:
By incorporating these unnecessary Clauses in the Bill he is throwing away a useful reserve weapon out of sheer statutory tidiness of mind 
The only reservation I would make is that amongst these Clauses it is right to include Clause 23 (4) which repeals Section 15 (1) of the 1948 Act. We shall come to that later. I thought that was a fair statement by the Economist.
5.0 p.m.
There is one other point which I should like to make. The Monopolies Commission has, I believe, a valuable function to perform in dealing with general references. I am concerned at the possibility that the opportunity for an inquiry into these general subjects may be limited as a result of what we are now doing. For example, it was clear from our debates earlier that exclusive dealing will not be caught by the provision relating to registration. I mentioned the case of the petrol companies and the effect of their agreements on independent garage proprietors. I also mentioned the case of the agricultural machinery trade, where exclusive dealing may have a very serious effect upon independent manufacturers. It seems to me that that would be a useful subject for examination by the Monopolies Commission. If, however, not only the words "restrictive practices" but the whole principle of the examination into restrictive practices were dropped and the word "monopoly" used in its limited meaning, I am afraid that any general inquiry of that nature would be ruled out. Therefore, I feel that it would be unwise to approve these proposals in Clause 22 and those which come later in Clause 23.
May I ask a question, because it may perhaps ease our minds to some extent? In the concluding subsection of Clause 22, we read:
This Section shall come into force on such date as may be appointed by order made by the Board of Trade by statutory instrument".
I estimate that even from the Minister's point of view and from the point of view that we do not want to have too much overlapping, it would take about three years before we could ascertain how this new procedure would really work, and to what extent we could reasonably cut down the Monopolies Commission. I should like to know what date the Minister has


in mind for making this order, because, if it is three years or later I feel that we should perhaps not be upsetting the general policy of tackling restrictive practices to the extent that we should be if we passed this Clause on the assumption that this order would be brought forward at an earlier date.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: If the Parliamentary Secretary's speech is the President's last word on this series of Amendments, I am afraid that they are both in danger of forfeiting their Parliamentary good conduct medal which they had been winning from the Economist. I doubt very much whether its leader writers will be referring to their brilliant Parliamentary performance after the Parliamentary Secretary's showing this afternoon, because he totally failed to deal with the very simple propositions which the Economist has been urging, along with us, that the Monopolies Commission and— here I quote the Economist:
 should be kept in full being as a reserve weapon behind the new system".
The, Parliamentary Secretary's only reply was to give us three principles —a rather nice sort of legalistic logic of categories. They do not meet the practical position at all. First, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there must be a proper apportionment of work between the new Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies Commission. But the whole of our complaint is that what the Government are doing in Part III of the Bill is to take away from the Monopolies Commission some work which will not be given to the Restrictive Practices Court, and which will in fact lapse altogether as a result. There are gaps created and they will have the effect of shrinking the size and functions of the Monopolies Commission out of all proportion to the adjustments necessary by the fact that there are certain jobs which will obviously in future have to be done by the Court and not by the President's order arising out of the Monopolies Commission's Reports.
One example which I would give very briefly is that if the President's approach to the Monopolies Commission in future is to be on the lines which the Parliamentary Secretary suggests, it looks as if we shall not have any more reports industry by industry, and we shall lose a

whole wealth of valuable information which might show us ways in which our own legislation ought to be improved. Is not this information valuable, even though our practice in future will be different from that which it has been in the past? I would say that the Government on this point have been answered out of their own mouths. They have told us that they are going to publish the Reports on the current references to the Monopolies Commission on completion. If these Reports are to be of no value in the future, why waste public money on publishing them? Why complete the Reports on rubber, footwear, metal windows and all the rest and publish them, if any report on a whole industry is to have no value? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this will cost £100 million. Why not save a few thousand of that by closing down altogether. But, of course, these Reports will be of value and so will the others which could be made if the references were allowed to be completed.
The second point which I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary—if he were listening instead of gossiping—concerns his theme of which he makes so much, that there must be no clash of jurisdictions—that this was the essence of sensible government. That really will not bear examination, because the difficulty here is that this Bill has loopholes where there is no jurisdiction at all. This is where the whole of our armoury against restrictive practices breaks down. I should like to give an example from the Economist, in order to show that this is not just a piece of partisanship, but a very practical point. It arises particularly from the action which we are taking under Clause 20 in giving legal enforcement to individual resale price maintenance.
This has alarmed a great many of us. The Economist has pointed out that the Monopolies Commission's Report on tyres came to the conclusion that the only way to tackle price restrictionism in this industry was by banning individual resale price maintenance. The Economist said that unless we did that all our efforts to break up collective arrangements would be abortive. But we are not doing that under this Bill. On the contrary, we are giving to the tyre manufacturers power to enforce by law their own resale price maintenance arrangements.
That means that we have in a very important industry a restrictionist policy affecting the consumer very directly over an important field which is not covered by Part 1 or Part III of the Bill. We tried, under our Amendment to Clause 19, to deal with the situation. We wanted the Court to refuse the right of enforcement of resale price maintenance unless it was satisfied that it was in the public interest. The Government turned it down. The Economist agrees with us, and has said that this is a very serious loophole in the Bill and that the Government ought to have steady investigations of industries where individual resale price maintenance, which we now propose to enforce under the Bill, may result in serious restrictionist activities.
TheEconomist quotes the motor trade with its exclusive list of dealers and points out that the motor trade may get away with its exclusiveness of dealers on the ground of safety, by going to the Restrictive Practices Court and saying that the motor car is a lethal weapon and that they must be satisfied that its sale and maintenance is only in the hands of men who will operate in the interests of public

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Cunningham, Knox
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Aiken, W. T.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Danoe, J. C. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hope, Lord John


Armstrong, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Ashton, H.
Drayson, G. B.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Atkins, H. E.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Howard, John (Test)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Barter, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hyde, Montgomery


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Fell, A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Black, C. W.
Foster, John
Joseph, Sir Keith


Body, R. F.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Keegan, D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Freeth, D. K.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Braine, B. R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kerr, H. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kershaw, J. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Kirk, P. M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leavey, J. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Leburn, W. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Green, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Campbell, Sir David
Cresham Cooke, R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Carr, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cole, Norman
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Longden, Gilbert


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hay, John
McAdden, S. J.


Crouch, R. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

safety. They may get by with that. Then, under Clause 20, they will have power to enforce by law individual resale price maintenance and, as the Economist says, we shall have restriction in all its glory operating under this Clause.

What is the way out? The Economist makes the suggestion that the way out is to leave the Monopolies Commission as a flexible instrument which can be used to block up any escape route from the spirit of the legislation which is setting up this loophole. We suggest very seriously that the President is treating the whole problem too frivolously; he is brushing aside arguments of great weight coming from quarters of great authority. He will live to regret the serious damage he is proposing, under Part III, to the Monopolies Commission which, in the view of all those who have studied this question, has been, is, and ought to remain the long-stop in our efforts to deal with this problem.

Question put. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 199,

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Partridge, E.
Studholme, H. G.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Summers, G.S. (Aylesbury)


Maddan, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Pott, H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maitland, Hon Patrick (Lanark)
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marlow, A. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marples, A. E.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Marshall, Douglas
Rawlinson, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Mathew, R.
Redmayne, M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mauda Angus
Renton, D.L.M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Rippon. A. G. F.
Turner, H.F.L.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S, L. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Russell, R. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Sharples, R. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Shepherd, William
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Neave, Airey
Speir, R. M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderand, S.)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Oakshott, H. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Woollam, John Victor


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)



Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wills and Mr. Godber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H
Paton, J.


Anderson, Frank
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, E.


Balfour, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Probert, A. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon, C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Snow, J. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cove, W. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cronin, J. D.
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Daines, P.
Mahon, Simon
Tomney, F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Deer, G.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Messer, Sir F.
Wade, D. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moss, R.
Willey, Frederick


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mulley, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Forman, J. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Gibson, C. W.
Orbach, M.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, at the end to add:
and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
I can deal with the Amendment briefly. I do not imagine that subsection (6) means what I take it to mean, and the Amendment is intended to seek clarification. The subsection states that the Clause as a whole
shall come into force on such date as may be appointed by order made by the Board of Trade by statutory instrument.
It does not specify the nature of the Statutory Instrument.
I understand that there are certain Statutory Instruments which need only be laid and over which the House has no control, either by affirmative Resolution or by annulment by Prayer. If that is so, we on this side would be extremely unwilling to leave the subsection as it is. Clearly, we do not like the Clause and we want the maximum Parliamentary control over its operation and what the President gets up to. We want to be assured that any Order which is laid by the President will be subject to annulment by Parliament.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Lady and I certainly do not want to deny her any proper Parliamentary opportunities. At the same time, subsection (6) is common form in many Statutes. When Governments want a certain Section of a Bill to be brought into operation at a different period, it is common form, as hon. Members will recollect, to say that it shall be brought into force by Statutory Instrument. It is common form, therefore, not to have the Order subject to the negative procedure. I am sympathetic towards the negative procedure,

but we have already debated the principle of the Clause and it would be merely repetitive to debate it again on a later occasion. For this reason, the subsection follows the common form.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is not the first occasion on the Bill when we have tried to rescue the President of the Board of Trade from those who surround him. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said earlier, the Order which is to be made by the Board of Trade need not be made until the President and his Department have had an opportunity of seeing how the Court works and how the process comes out. Obviously, it is desirable—in our view, at least—that no Order should be made until we have had an opportunity of seeing how the Court works and then for Parliament also to have the opportunity of reviewing the operation of the Clause in the light of the information we then have about the working of the Court. This is, therefore, a point of considerable substance, to which we attach importance.
It is no answer whatever for the President to say that subsection (6) is common form and follows the pattern of a number of Statutes. Equally, many Acts contain provisions whereby Statutory Instruments are subject to annulment. The President's answer, therefore, does not get us anywhere. What we are concerned about is that the Clause should not be brought into operation until we have had the opportunity of seeing how the Court works and then for Parliament to consider the position. For these reasons we shall press the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 154. Noes 197.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Short, E. W.


Grimond, J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hannan, w.
Messer, Sir F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T.


Hobson, O. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hobbard, T. F.
Moss, R.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Orbach, M.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Owen, W. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, s.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Usborne, H. C.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Wade, D. W.


King, Dr. H. M.
Paton, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Lawson, G. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, A. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilkins, W. A.



Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
Willey, Frederick


Lindgren, G. S.
Redhead, E. C.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, William
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt, Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McLeavy, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Mahon, Simon
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)


Aitken, W. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Hyde, Montgomery


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Ashton, H.
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Atkins, H. E.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fell, A.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Balniel, Lord
Finlay, Graeme
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Barter, John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Keegan, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Beattie, C.
Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kershaw, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kirk, P. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Freeth, D. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leavey, J. A.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Leburn, W. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Black, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Body, R. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Braine, B. R.
Green, A.
Longden, Gilbert


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McAdden, S. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Channon, H.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)


Cole, Norman
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Douglas


Crouch, R. F.
Hope, Lord John
Mathew, R.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip-Northwood)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maude, Angus


Cunningham, Knox
Horobin, Sir Ian
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Curris, G. B. H.
Howard, John (Test)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Deedes, W. F.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Molson, A. H. E.







Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Redmayne, M.
Teeling, W.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Thorneycrott, Rt. Hon. P.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Neave, Airey
Robertson, Sir David
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Russell, R. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sharpies, R. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vosper, D. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Speir, R. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


Partridge, E.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Pitman, I. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Whitelaw, W.S.(.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Pott, H. P.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Studholme, H. G.
Woollam, John Victor


Profumo, J. D.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)



Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wells and Mr. E. Wakefield.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23.—(FUTURE SCOPE OF REFERENCES TO MONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move, in page 19, line 41, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. Do I understand that you are not calling the Amendment in my name in page 19, line 41?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): It will be in order to discuss that Amendment and also the Amendment in line 45 and the Amendment in page 20, line 2 with the Amendment which I have now called, but they will not be called separately.

Mr. Grimond: This is the subsection under which all references to the Monopolies Commission will now fall, unless the President gives a direction to the contrary. We have made it clear that we do not think that the work of the Corn-mission has anything like ended and we are concerned to know what sort of dire

ctions the President intends to give under this subsection. He has indicated that reference to common prices is to be withdrawn as he now considers that a restrictive practice and cases will come to the Court under Part I of the Bill. We consider that there may be very useful reports which could be made by the Commission and we regret that, even at this stage, the Commission is to have no opportunity of reporting. I wish to ask the President whether he contemplates that some interim report should be made on the cases before the Court.
Generally, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that this subsection is necessary. We accept that we cannot have a contradiction between the Court under Part I of the Bill and the Commission. But the right hon. Gentleman has certain powers already, without this Bill, to regulate the work of the Commission, and would it not be useful to allow the Commission to complete at least most of the work on which it is at present engaged? I am not entirely certain what work it is engaged on. I know some of it, but not all, and it would be useful if the President could tell us—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Licensing (Airports) Act, 1956.
2. Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act, 1956.
3. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956.
4. Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, 1956.
5. Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1956.
6. Roxburgh County Council (Ale Water) Order Confirmation Act, 1956.
7. Castle Gate Congregational Church Burial Ground (Nottingham) Act, 1956.
8. Ipswich Dock Act, 1956.
9. Saint Stephen Walbrook (Saint Antholin's Churchyard) Act, 1956.
10. Elder Yard Chapel Chesterfield Act, 1956.
11. Tees Conservancy Act, 1956.
12. Barry Corporation (Barry Harbour) Act, 1956.
13. Leicester Corporation Act, 1956.
14. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1956.
15. Sion College Act, 1956.
16. Pontypool Water Act, 1956.

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Grimond: Before we were interrupted I was engaged in a flight of oratory designed to show the desirability of eliminating subsection (3). I have been considerably reassured during the interval by finding that those around me whom I thought to be on the opposite side to me in this matter are on the same side. I understand that the series of Labour Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Stechford

(Mr. Roy Jenkins), which I thought were designed to do the opposite of what I sought to do, in fact would do the same thing. If we agree to those Amendments being made, the whole subsection disappears.
I see no reason why the Monopolies Commission should not be allowed to report on the majority of the cases which are now before it, and in particular on the general case of common practices. I think that the Government would have had a stronger case if the subsection had been put the other way round and the President had been given some power to withdraw particular cases from the Commission if, for instance, it could be shown that a long time would elapse before the Commission's report would be made and that by that time Part III of the Bill would be in operation and the cases would have to go before the Restrictive Practices Court. As things stand, all the cases now before the Commission fall to the ground, unless the President of the Board of Trade directs otherwise.
1 should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has decided which of these cases are to be allowed to continue and whether at least interim reports are to be given on any of them, and in particular on the general one of common practices. Unless the President can give as a powerful explanation of this subsection, I think it would be better to-have it removed from the Clause altogether.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is correct in thinking that, contrary to the first impression that they may give, the three Labour Amendments added together come to almost precisely the same meaning as that which he is trying to urge upon the Committee.

Mr. Jay: We do it much more subtly.

Mr. Grimond: But at much greater length.

Mr. Jenkins: I should not like to comment in great detail on the subsection as it would be amended by our Amendments because it reads like a literal translation from the Icelandic, but I do not think that we need dispute with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the respective methods by which we are trying to achieve our objective. We are


all concerned to get from the Monopolies Commission the Reports upon which it is at present engaged without the Commission being stopped in its work.
It is natural that the Liberal Party should support the Labour Party, or that we on these benches should support them in this case, because I think that it was the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) who said a little earlier today that the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade to Part III was distinguished by an excessive degree of administrative tidiness. I think that the hon. Member was taking the phrase from the Economist. There has been a great deal of quotation and counter-quotation from the Economist in the course of debate on Part III.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has defined a newspaper which supported the Government as a well-informed newspaper. There must have been, in recent months, a large number of newspapers in Fleet Street which were imperfectly informed on this issue. 1 take it that the hon. Gentleman considers that the Economist is a very well-informed newspaper, except in relation to Part HI of the Bill on which it did not support the Government.
The proposal in this subsection would carry administrative tidiness to an exceptional degree, because here is a situation in which the Commission has already done a great deal of work on a number of subjects on which we would like to have its views. To say at this stage that we should be prevented from having that information from the Commission merely because there might be a conceivable overlap is a great waste of the valuable work which has already been done.
One of the valuable functions of the Commission in the past has been to provide a great deal of information about restrictive practices which otherwise we should not have had. If we look back upon the Commission's work we can with more certainty pay tribute to the work it has done in informing public opinion about restrictive practices than to the detailed alterations in industry which it has effected. There is a danger of confusion here on the question of overlap between the jurisdiction of the Court and that of the Commission. The Commission has provided information to a much greater extent than it has provided action, and

it is only when one considers action that there can be a dangerous confusion of jurisdiction.
There is no doubt at all—and this is an issue which we have not discussed as much as we might have done, and it arises directly from the Amendment—that the Commission's machinery of inquiry provides a means of obtaining information which certainly would not be available to us under the Court procedure. If we take the example of the Commission's Report on the cable industry, there is no doubt at all that a great number of practices which existed in that industry and which the Commission brought out most clearly and valuably in its Report were seen by the Commission only as a result of the most detailed inquiry into the industry. It looked into pile after pile of minutes of sub-committees of trade associations, and looked in a way that will not be possible to the Court.
If we are to say that in respect of these ten industries which the Commission is at present investigating the work already done is to be abandoned and not to be allowed to be published, we shall be saying that we shall deliberately prevent ourselves from obtaining information, some of which has been already obtained and a large part of which will not be brought out by the procedure of the Court.
I agree, therefore, with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I hope very much that, particularly in the case of the ten references to certain industries, the President will tell us that the Commission will be allowed to continue. At the very least—and I am not saying that this will be a satisfactory compromise—the President should let us have interim Reports from the Commission giving the information which has already been acquired so that there will be no waste of the work already done.
There is the second question of the general reference on common practices on which the Commission is working. I am surprised that, on his own showing, the President of the Board of Trade should not wish to have the benefit of the Commission's advice. The right hon. Gentleman said at one stage, and gave his reasons, that it was much more important that we should apply ourselves not to the detail of the machinery of enforcement of various practices, but that we should get down to matters of greater


substance, such as the question of common prices.
The President's treatment of the Commission from this point of view has been extraordinary. First, he sets the Commission a complicated list to inquire into and then says, "These subjects are not of primary importance. The subjects of primary importance are those like common prices. On the subject of common prices I want you to stop your work in the middle and not give me or the country the benefit of the work already done, but bring it all to a sudden end."
I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman really seeks to produce this great waste of effort. I hope that in his reply to these Amendments, the first of which was moved by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, he will be able to tell us that at least the Government will make the fullest possible use of information already available and will allow the Commission to complete the eleven tasks which it has in hand at present.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The proposal here, which is the same whether it be contained in the single Amendment of the Liberal Party or the triple Amendment of the official Opposition, would be to leave all the references which are at present before the Commission, and were before it at the commencement of this Measure, so that they would be completed.
Again this raises one of the principles to which I referred in our previous debate. Here again we are concerned to make the best possible use of the Monopolies Commission, subject always to safeguarding our principle of avoiding any clash of jurisdiction. If the suggestion is that the Commission should be allowed to complete its work on all these Reports, with the implication that action should then be taken, after the passing of this Measure, upon agreements which would be registrable under the Acts and would go to the courts, that would involve a clear clash of jurisdiction, and it would clearly derogate from that fundamental principle which I sought to stress earlier.
That being so, it is not possible to accede to the full suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to leave all the eleven references to be completed by the Commission after the commencement of

this Measure, as far as they have not been completed at that time. So what we are proposing to do, in order to implement the principles which are guiding us in this matter, is to separate those refrences which can be completed before the commencement of the Act from those which it appears cannot be completed before the Act comes into force. Those which can be completed before the commencement of the Act and the reconstitution of the Commission will be completed. There are five of those out of the eleven which come within that category.
There is one reference which we think can be completed on a factual basis only, that is to say, without the public interest element, but on the factual basis. That leaves five out of the eleven. One of those we propose should be continued and, as it were, taken on and completed by the reconstituted Commission since that one has substantial elements which lie within the scope of the new Commission.

Mr. Jay: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say if the five Reports to which he has referred will be published?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, the ones which are completed will be published. I have no doubt that they will supply a useful quarry of information which will be available to be drawn on both by those appearing for the Registrar and those appearing for the parties, in so far as restrictive agreements come before the Restrictive Practices Court where these Reports are relevant.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it intended that action should be taken, if action falls to be taken, in the case of the five Reports which are completed?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. Obviously if action on those Reports would be an anticipation of a decision of the Restrictive Practices Court, clearly no action could be taken without usurping the jurisdiction of the Court and sacrificing the one principle by which we are guided.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again. I understand on his own premises why no action should be taken, but I fail to see why it is important to draw a distinction between the five which can be completed by a certain date and the other


five from the point of view of not having overlapping jurisdiction. It is clear, as I tried to indicate, that the only purpose of the five Reports which have been completed is to provide information, so there can be no question of overlapping jurisdiction or of confusion.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but we are not having a Monopolies Commission simply as a body supplying information. I indicated in our earlier debate that it would have two important functions left exclusively to it. When the Commission is reconstituted after the commencement of the Act it should then be free, in the main, to proceed with its functions as they will be under the new Act when it comes into law. However, in the interim period it is sensible and practical that the utmost use should be made of the Commission as a fact-finding body, but only on those references which it can complete before it is reconstituted, and so as not to trespass upon the time which it will devote to its proper functions.

Mr. Jay: Why should not the Commission complete all the inquiries to which reference has already been made. at any rate on a fact-finding basis, and then publish the information?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Because those matters, in so far as they are registrable agreements, will be coming before the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Jay indicated: dissent

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. In regard to the first five there will be no parallel or contemporaneous action. By the time the Commission has completed its Reports the Act will not be in force, and so there is no possibility of a parallel and simultaneous action on the part of the Commission and the Court in the way in which we intend that this procedure should work.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman is basing his case on a clash of jurisdiction. Clash of jurisdiction involves action being taken by two bodies in opposition to each other. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman states that there is no question of action being taken upon any report. Therefore the point that is being made is, why not com-

plete all the Reports, since he contemplates no action on any Report, and therefore there cannot be any clash of jurisdiction on any of them?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is over simplying this matter. The clash of jurisdiction is only one element in this matter. There is a second element, which is the fact that at present the Commission can properly undertake this work because it will not yet be reconstituted and charged with its duties under the Act. There is a third element, which will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that in any event we have not at present power to withdraw the five references. They continue under the existing law. Of course we do not have power under the Bill until the Bill becomes law.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On the question of the reconstitution of the Commission, this is a complete bogey. The President has power under Clause 22 to bring in the Clause to reconstitute the Commission whenever he wants to. Therefore, the Statute does not automatically reconstitute the Commission. The President can reconstitute it after all the Reports have been published if there is anything of substance in the point.

Mr. Walker-Smith: One can, of course-, do so if one takes the view that it is more valuable to use the Commission for that purpose than to reconstitute it in its new form in order to get the procedure, working. It is envisaged that the Commission will deal with two specific matters which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court and are left as. the main field for the activity of the Commission.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Commission can do that under the 1948 Act as. it stands without being reconstituted. One is not depriving it of any work through its being held up. There is nothing in that point at all.

Mr. Walker-Smith: 1 should have thought it was clear that if one wished to continue the whole of the work on which the Commission was now engaged without the danger of a clash of jurisdiction one could do it only on a basis of providing information. We consider that the time of the Commission in its


reconstituted state will be better spent dealing with the matters over which it has specific jurisdiction rather than dealing merely on a fact-finding basis with matters some of which may be paralleled by that time in the proceedings before the Court itself.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and some right hon. Gentlemen opposite shake their heads. Let us take the case referred to earlier, that of the Section 15 references on common prices and agreed tendering. One would imagine that that is a reference which. if it went on and were completed, would necessarily take a long time before the Commission. We have already said that it is our intention to have a procedure for early registration, and so on, in regard to restrictive agreements in respect of common price arrangements. There would be a clear danger there of these two things going on in parallel, and, quite apart from the possibilities of a clash of jurisdiction it would be a waste of the time of the Commission if it was doing work which was being done, in effect, on a specific basis at the same time by the Court.

Mr. R. Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a reference on common level tendering would take a long time. In its circulars to organisations, the Commission has stated that it has all the background material and needs not facts but statements. Evidently the hon. and learned Gentleman has been wrongly informed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If facts were not required, there would be little value in having the sort of fact-finding report to which reference has been made.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman contradicting what was said earlier? He is saying that the Commission cannot make the other Reports because, if it did, it would have too much work and would not be able to do its new job. An hour ago, when we wanted to put more members on the Commission, the hon. and learned Gentleman told us that there would not be enough work for the Commission to do. Is that not totally contradictory?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Edwards: We have not had a convincing reply to the Amendments. How does the Commission work? It collects facts covering a whole range of industries, and it does it in a very painstaking way. No other organisation in the country is in a position to collect the kind of information which the Commission has been accumulating since 1949. Consequently, the Commission has a great deal of background information covering many references on which it has not yet reported.
If we had time, I could quote documents sent out by the Commission asking for statements about level tendering and saying that it already had the background information on the subject. That means that the publication of the facts relating to the reference would be a very simple task. Since the Commission was established it has had twenty-eight references it has reported on sixteen, and twelve are outstanding
Let us look at the references which it is sought to exclude. One concerns electric batteries. This has no relationship to the new Court. We should all like to know a lot about electric batteries because a conspiracy about reducing the life of batteries was reported. Another reference being excluded relates to street-lighting equipment. I do not think either of those references can go before the new Court.
Another reference relates to steel frames for buildings, and we shall not have a report on that. There have been many complaints from local authorities, including the London County Council and the West Hartlepools City Council, complaining that, because of the cost of steel girders, the costs of education and housing, and, indeed, our living cost, are higher than they would otherwise be. Because of the cost of steel frames for building purposes, the costs of all our houses are greater than they should be.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Gentleman seems to be multiplying his illustrations.

Mr. Edwards: I am merely dealing, Sir Rhys, with the references which are definitely to be excluded from the work of the Commission. I am merely point-


ing out that the Commission has already gathered the information it requires on most of them and the reporting would be a very simple task indeed. In view of the Minister's speeches during the proceedings on the Bill to the effect that the ultimate aim of the Measure is to destroy monopoly, I cannot understand why he resists an Amendment which merely asks for the completion of the twenty-eight references.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the Committee which are the five references on which fact-finding is to be completed?

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. p. G.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Aitken, W. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Marples, A. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas


Alport C. J. M.
Grant, W. (Woodslde)
Mathew, R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maude, Angus


Arbuthnot, John
Green, A.
Mawby, R. L.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Ashton, H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, A. H. E.


Barter, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hay, John
Nairn, D. L. S.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'h, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bishop, F. P.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.


Black, C. W.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Ormsby-Core, Hon. W. D.


Body, R. F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P, S.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Panneil, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braine, B. R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, John (Test)
Pitman, I. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pott, H. P.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J,
Powell, J. Enoch


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey(Hail Green)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cortleld, Capt. F. V.
Joynson-Hioks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Russell, R. S.


Craddoek, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Sharpies, R. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Kerby, Capt, H. B.
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Kerr, H. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kirk, P. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Danee, J. C. G.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leburn, W. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Studholme, H. G.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Outhie, W. S.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Teeling, W.


Erroll, F. J.
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, S. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turner, H. F. L.


Foster, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)

Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Freeth, D. K.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Vosper, D. F.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, D. C.

Mr. Walker-Smith: They are the supply and export of heavy electrical plant and allied machinery, the supply of certain industrial and medical gases, the supply of standard metal windows and doors, the supply of certain rubber footwear, and the supply of tea.

Mr. Grimond: Is it the case that in relation to other references no interim reports will be made and no information will be published about the work already done?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 143.

Wall, Major Patrick
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border;
Woollam, John Victor


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)



Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hannan, W.
Owen, W. J.


Albu, A. H.
Hastings, 8.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, C. A.


Anderson, Frank
Healey, Denis
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Holmes, Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bevan, R. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, A. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W, T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pryde, D.J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Boyd, T. C.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, E. M.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Cove, W. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cronin, J. D.
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, Frank
Tomney, F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson,
Turner-Samuels, M.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu. J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Viant, S. P.


Delargy, H. J.
Marquand, R. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Erie
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Forman, J, C.
Moyle, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Grimond.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 20, line 3, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the" in line 5.
Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, two kinds of references to the Monopolies Commission can be made. The first is a reference of fact only, so that the Commission reports on facts only. The second is a report on facts and on the effect on the public interest. What the Government want to do in the words proposed to be left out is to cut down the latter of those reports, that is to say, the report on facts plus public interest, to a report on facts only.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the last Amendment, we understand that the Government

require this power specially to deal with the report upon electronic valves and cathode ray tubes. We can understand that. We are opposed to the Government upon it, but the matter has been voted upon and disposed of. But we fail completely to understand why the power should be taken for any other purpose, or any future report. It is obviously within the discretion of the Board of Trade, which allocates the reports upon all the references it makes. and in those circumstances it seems a quite unnecessary provision. We should like an explanation of it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. The purpose of the Amendment is very much


more limited than would appear from its wording. All that is wanted is to take the power for variation during the interim period which we have just been discussing. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, between now and the Report stage I shall see that proper words are drafted with that more limited effect.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: In view of the comfort which the President has given us, although we are opposed to the cathode ray tube treatment, we have dealt with that and we shall not take up time by protesting further against it. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 20; line 8, to leave out from "effect" to the end of Clause.
I had prepared a long and extremely well-marshalled speech upon this matter, designed for reproduction in local newspapers in my constituency. That would have earned me the additional plaudits both of my constituents and my party. On reflection, however, I do not think that I can add to the stark beauty of the language of the Amendment, namely, to
leave out from ' effect ' to end of Clause ".
No words of mine, or of Shakespeare's, could advance my cause more capably than those. I am sure that if I ask the President to examine them carefully, he will come to the conclusion that I am right, and will accept my Amendment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Once again, I can go nearly nine-tenths of the way to meet the point of the Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to prevent the review power of Section 12 of the 1948 Act clashing with the jurisdiction of the Court; I think that everybody will agree with that. As drafted, however, the Clause goes too wide. Some of these agreements, arrangements, orders or undertakings entered into may have nothing to do with Part I. In those cases, it is quite essential to retain—or, at any rate, it would be quite wrong to abandon —the —Section 12 powers. Again, it could be proper to authorise investigation into questions of compliance during a period before these undertakings were reviewed by the Court.
Bearing those matters in mind, therefore, and after hearing the hon. Member's very lucid explanation—it was one of the clearest speeches we have had during the Committee stage, and I commend him upon it —I can give an undertaking to limit the provision to the purposes which 1 have described, and in those circumstances I hope that the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: As the President cannot resist my argument, I cannot resist his. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Lionel Heald: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend for a little information about the procedure of the Monopolies Commission. Reference has been made to the future activities of the Commission, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree that it is most desirable to have consistency and an absence of conflict between the Commission and the Court. As my right hon. Friend is well aware, various uncertainties have arisen, and some complaints have been made, about some of the procedure adopted by the Commission, particularly in relation to its view that it is not a judicial body and is, therefore, under no obligation to acquaint the parties before it with information which comes into its possession.
In some cases that has resulted in a feeling that people might be going up the back-stairs and giving the Commission information which the parties concerned would have no opportunity of dealing with. I am sure that no one would want that view to have any foundation. We have been assured that the Attorney-General will make it his business to see that matters coming before the new Court are conducted in an extremely judicial way, and 1 am sure that the President would not want there to be any doubt that the same sort of procedure will be observed by the Commission. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to assure us that he is looking into the question and will take steps to remove any public disquiet which may exist in relation to it.

Mr. P. Thomeyeroft: In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, I would


merely say that the procedure of the Monopolies Commission has been very carefully studied on a number of occasions. I think that Sir David Cairns has demonstrably shown that he wants these matters to be dealt with fairly, and manifestly fairly. There is no doubt about that. He is a man of the greatest repute, and the reputation of the Commission in this matter is very high. To make absolutely sure that the procedure was fair, I invited my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to investigate it, and they have reported that it is probably the fairest which can be devised. Nevertheless, perfection is never attained in these matters, and I am willing to consider any proposals for meeting the requirements of the case.
Some suggestions have been made that decisions are arrived at as a result of people going up the back stairs with pieces of information, but nothing could be further from the truth or the realities of the way in which the Commission works. If anything can be done to disabuse the public mind of those ideas, I shall be only too happy to see that it is done. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend the desire to put the matter right in this respect.
I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor to the points which have been made, and we shall consider again whether any improvements can be made. IL may be that adjustments in procedure can more easily be made in the case of this body, which is not judicial but inquisitorial. It may be that we might better make adjustments not by writing Clauses into the Bill but by giving directions, which we have the power to do under the original Act.

Sir L. Heald: I want to make it quite clear that I was not making the slightest suggestion against Sir David Cairns. But it is important to appreciate that cases have occurred where some misunderstanding seems to have arisen; indeed, I have personal knowledge of one such case. I admit that degree of interest in the matter. In this case, it was understood that the Ministry of Works had supplied certain information to the Commission, at the Commission's request, and that when the parties asked for particu-

lars of that information they were told that they were not entitled to know what it was. That may be right, but it is the kind of thing which gives rise to just those entirely wrong ideas which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, and I hope that the whole question will be looked into.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I hope that the President will bear in mind that it may be one thing to divulge information—although I can conceive of cases where that might not be essential, although, generally speaking, it would be proper—but that there should be a distinction between doing that and divulging the source of the information. It may not be right to divulge the source, although it may be right to divulge the information.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I wish to associate myself with what the President has said about Sir David Cairns and the Commission. It has done admirable work and we are not blind to the fact that a great deal of criticism of and opposition to the Commission comes from quarters which object to the work it is doing.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that it is most desirable that the procedure of the Commission should be above reproach. While remembering that the Commission is exactly as the President said—an inquisitorial body and not a judicial body, and, therefore, its procedure cannot be put in line with judicial procedure on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey in an earlier Amendment—we are concerned about the attacks made in one way or another upon the effectiveness of the Court and the Commission.
All through the Bill we have been trying to maintain the Court as an effective instrument against restrictive practices and the same with the Commission. From that point of view hon. Members on this side of the Committee will examine with great care any proposal made to restrict the powers of the Commission. As a result of the attacks which have been made on the Commission, we have had the investigation by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, which was mentioned by the President. They suggested one minor


Amendment, and, apart from that, they completely justified everything which had been done.
I do not know what further investigation is required. We cannot have a more high-powered investigation than that. I should have thought it good enough for anyone in the ordinary course. But what we had seen creeping out from the Government benches time and again during the course of this Bill—not from the President himself—is this attack all the time on the restrictive practices —

Sir L. Heald: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman making a suggestion against me?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No. I said that I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member that the Commission must be above reproach. I was not making any personal attack upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I wish to make that clear.
There have been strong objections, however, not to the ineffectiveness of the Commission, but to the effectiveness of it, and we shall certainly approach any proposal or procedure or anything of that sort with that in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES UNDER S. 10 OF ACT OF 1948.)

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to move, in page 20, line 15, to leave out subsection (1).
To show that we wish to get on with the Bill I propose to be extremely brief. I remember that when I was a reporter I attended industrial conferences year after year, and that so long as certain gentlemen were opening and closing their mouths I could take down their remarks without listening to what they were saying; and I was always accurate.

Division No 189.]
AYES
(6.47 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Aitken, w. T.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Allan, R. A. (Paddlngton, S )
Bishop, F. P.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Alport, C. J. M.
Black, C. W.
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat
Body, R. F.
Crouch, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John (Tiverton)
Boothby, Sir Robert
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Cunningham, Knox


Ashton, H.
Braine, B. R.
Currie, G. B. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dance, J. C. G.


Balniel, Lord
Brooman-White, R. C.

Deedes, W. F.


Barter, John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Campbell, Sir David
du Cann, E. D. L.

I am sure that the President has anticipated our misgivings about this Clause and this subsection. We do not want to see any loopholes where agreements can slip between the Court and the Commission. Therefore, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman has a reply prepared, I will sit down and listen to it.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not wish to repeat all the arguments which were debated in some detail earlier. It is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to see that we do not have a clash of jurisdiction between the Commission and the Court. In these circumstances, a subsection such as this is necessary; otherwise, we should be retaining the power to make orders under Section 10 of the 1948 Act in respect of matters which, by a decision of the House of Commons, whether we agree with it or not. have been put under the jurisdiction of the Court. That is the reason for this subsection. While I appreciate that there are differences about this which we have discussed on an earlier Amendment, I hope that the matter will not be pressed further.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The President is aware of the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We have divided on an earlier Amendment. We are opposed to the whole of the approach of the President to this part of the Bill. This is one of the main Amendments to this part of the Bill and, therefore, we shall press it. But I shall not take up more time in discussing the matter because we have debated the principle, and the position has been outlined by my hon. Friend.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause—

The Committee divided Ayes 177, Noes 140.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Erroll, F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Fell, A.
Leburn, W. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Sharpies, R. C.


Freeth, D. K.
Longden, Gilbert
Shepherd, William


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gibson-Watt, D.
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, H. G.


Green, A.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mathew, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Heath, R. Hon. E. R. G.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mawby, R. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hope, Lord John
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, A. H. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, John (Test)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Neave, Airey
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Iremongcr, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John Victor


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.



Keegan, D.
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pott, H. P.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Kerr, H. W.
Powell J. Enoch
Mr. Barber.


Kirk, P. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, G. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lindgreen, G. S.


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Lt. -Col. M.


Beswick, F.
Forman, J. C.
Maccoll, J. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInness, J


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, Frank


Blenkinsop, A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Grimond, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Boyd T. C.
Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Monslow, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Moody, A. S.


Chapman, W. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis m, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.


Clunie J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, A. E.
Oram, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbach, M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Oswald, T.


Cronin, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Owen, W. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parker, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.


Deer, C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, J.

Plummer, Sir Leslie
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Warbey, W. N.


Popplewell, E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Probert, A. R,
Sparks, J. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Willey, Frederick


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Redhead, E. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Zilliacus, K.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tomney, F.



Ross, William
Turner-Samuels, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, E. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.


Shurmer, P, L. E.
Viant, S. P.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, at the beginning to insert
" Except with the consent of the Board of Trade,.
As drafted, subsection (5) says:
No application shall be made under this Section.
That is, application to have one of these undertakings reviewed—
"…until the expiration of a period of three years beginning with the date of the commencement of this Act.
The Amendment will enable the Board of Trade, if it wishes to do so, to give consent to one of these cases being dealt with earlier. I think that that is a wise and prudent decision. We decided earlier in the Bill that the Board of Trade shall have power to give orders as to the timing of these various cases coming before the Court, and it might be—I do not say that it would be—felt that one of these matters which some years ago had been considered by the Commission was something which suitably fitted in to the pattern of work being done by the Court at that time.
It would be a pity to take away from ourselves the power to have any consideration of a matter of that sort. I do not think that we should do so. I hope very much that the Committee will accept the Amendment and give us this rather wider power than we possess at present.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This proposal helps the person who exercises a restrictive practice. It is an Amendment which goes in the direction favourable to him. Time and again during our debates we have heard it being preached from the opposite side of the Committee that the Board of Trade must not be dragged in, it must be kept out, and all the rest of it. Yet here we have a proposal which drags in the Board of Trade when it comes down in favour of the restrictive practitioner.
It really makes slightly "humbuguous" —if there were such a word—the arguments which have been put forward from the other side of the Committee, but I agree that in itself it is not an unreasonable provision. For that reason, while commenting on the attitude adopted by the Board of Trade, we nevertheless will not oppose the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 21, line 7, to leave out "three" and to insert "five".
This Amendment is of such a simple and obviously clear nature that I will try to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and say no more in its favour.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This is one of those very difficult Amendments to answer, because it is a matter of opinion upon which reasonable people can hold differing views about whether it ought to be three or five years. This is what we have in mind: we did not want a situation to arise where, on the passing of the Bill into law, all the undertakings would fall and all the practices which had been examined by the Commission would be revived. I am sure that the whole Committee would agree with that. That is at one end of the scale.
7.0 p.m.
At the other end, we do not want to put it out of the power of industries to have their cases heard at a reasonable period thereafter, and the compromise —for compromise it is, and must be in a matter of this kind—that we have struck is that they should be held or fixed, as we may say, for a period of three years, but that they do have an opportunity of being heard after that period. Unless some very powerful case can be made out for altering it, I suggest to the Committee that that is a reasonable arrangement.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree that this is a question of balance and of deciding on which side one comes down. I should have had some sympathy with the observations of the President but for what he said on the previous Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. It is a matter of balancing advantage and disadvantage, but, in a proper case, he has now taken to himself power as President of the Board of Trade to allow a case within the period of years set out within the subsection, whatever it may be—whether three years or five years. It is not a matter to press to a Division, but it is one which is not unimportant, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it before the Report stage.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I point out to the President that there really is a safeguarding provision in the final words of subsection (2) of this Clause; which provide that it has to be shown, or the court has to be satisfied, that
" no restrictions proposed to be accepted under the agreement would be contrary to the public interest.
Perhaps the President will take these two elements into consideration. First, there is the question of his intercession in the matter, which is the first safeguard, and then there is the second one, which is provided by the final words of the subsection, and which I have just quoted. In these circumstances, perhaps the President would consider that five years would not be a disadvantage in this particular matter.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will bear all these matters in mind. If I may give a forecast of my behaviour, I am going to use the Amendment which I moved on the last occasion—to give to the Board of Trade power to vary—for the purpose of resisting an Amendment which is to be moved by one of my hon. Friends behind me. I have pressure from both sides, but I think we have come to a reasonable compromise, and that the proposal is the best one that we can arrive at. I will, however, bear in mind the arguments that have been used.

Mr. Cronin: We are not entirely satisfied with the President's reassurance on this matter. In fact, were we engaged in more commercial circles, I should suggest splitting the difference and making it

Four However, not wishing to take up time I beg to ask leave to withdrew the amendment

Amendment, by leave with drawn

Mr. Charles Doughty: I beg to move in page 21,line 8,to leave out "the commencement of this Act and to insert:
any order made under section ten of the monopolies and restrictive practices (Inquiry and control) Act, 1948,or any other under-taking given to a competent authority by the person or persons in reference to whom a report has been made by the commission

The Chairman:: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the committee if this Amendment and the next one in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G Darling),also in page 21, line 8 are taken together

Mr. Doughty: It would seem that the provision for appealing or having under-takings or orders made under section 10 of the 1948 Act are too arbitrary; that it is an arbitrary date of three years from the date of the commencement of the operation of this Bill some industries got an undertaking or had an inquiry made a great many years after that they are therefore, in a much worse position than those industries which have not been before the monopolies commission or before it at a later date 
That may mean hardship for some and they think rightly or wrongly, that they should have their orders or undertakings inquired into now it is also a hardship for those who gave an undertaking not to carry on particular practices when similar practices court to be in the public interest and these people then want to get their undertakings or orders revoked
Until my right hon friend moved the Amendment which the committee has just accepted, inserting the words:
Except with the consent of consent of the Board of Trade,
They were in the position of being completely debarred until three years after the beginning of the operation of this Bill when it becomes law If we look at clause 17, we find that those who go before the Restrictive practices court may apply to have an order or undertaking varied by leave of the court that


application for such discharge has to be made under Clause 17 with the leave of the Court, and that such leave shall not be granted—
except upon prima facie evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances.
What they really ask is that they should go before the Court, if necessary, and say that there has been a material change in the relevant circumstances since the order or undertaking was made under the original Act. If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out, they should be able to go at any time before the Court and have the original undertaking or Order suspended or varied.

Mr. G. Darling: The time factor can also work on the assurances that are given about the references to the Monopolies Commission after the Bill is passed, and that was really the point in our minds. We may have assurances or undertakings given by industries which have been examined by the Monopolies Commission after the Act has been passed, and it may be worth while to allow that to stand, because the period of three years is not to be sacrosanct. We would like the views of the President on that matter, because it will help us to determine our position.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The two Amendments which the Committee is now discussing rather illustrate the point which my right hon. Friend made about conflicting pressures in this matter. It is, of course, obvious that there must be a fixed time limit, to prevent the Court spending the first period of its existence simply reconsidering matters which have been dealt with under previous procedures. Just what the time limit should be nobody can be dogmatic about, because on that there can be no exactitude.
If the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) were accepted as it stands and the three-year period ran from the date of the undertaking or order, instead of from the date of the commencement of the operation of the Act, it would make a very considerable subtraction from the period, because no Orders will have been made or undertakings given since the end of 1955, and most of them a long time before. Therefore, in the case of a good many, there would be no time limit

period if the Amendment was accepted as it stands.
I do not think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) would have much practical effect, because after the commencement of the operation of the Act no assurances or undertakings will, in fact, be required in respect of registrable agreements, which is what we are concerned with here. Though the Amendment would make a legal difference it would not have a practical effect. All things considered, the suggestion that was put out by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) was attractive, because when an hon. Member who is skilled in science talks about splitting the difference it is very difficult to resist his argument. It may be that the appropriate solution would be to consider making the period four years, with an undertaking that the Board of Trade would use the power given by the previous Amendment to examine any case of hardship. That sort of solution might commend itself on Report.

Mr. Doughty: I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider bringing the Clause more into line with Clause 17 so that the application is not made to the Board of Trade but, in accordance with the practice laid down by that Clause, can be made to the court which can keep its practice in similarity in these two procedures. In view of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jay: Since we are now making speeches in an interrogatory form, may I ask the President whether he is happy about Clause 24 (2)? Does he think it right to give the Restrictive Practices Court the power to set aside or vary an Order made by Parliament? An Order made by Parliament is a form of legislation. Is it not going very far in the direction of taking authority away from the House and giving it to the Court when he gives to the Court power to cancel legislation passed by Parliament without any reference back to Parliament?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The reason for the broad provision is that these various


arrangements have been examined over a period of years by the Monopolies Commission. They have been found to be either for or against the public interest. Now new criteria are laid down and new provisions are made, and it seems right, not immediately but at some stage, that these matters should be judged in the light of the provisions laid down by Parliament
This arises in only one case; it arises in the case of the Dental Goods Order. All the others were undertakings. I will look at the point which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has made. This is a serious point, but I do not think that any constitutional problem arises on it. I will, however, examine the matter.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carry out that pledge, because it seems to me to be a complete departure that anything done by the House should be set aside by some other body. One hon. Member frequently reminds us that this is an omnicompetent Assembly and points out how different we are from the Congress of the United States, for the Supreme Court in America can set aside a Bill altogether on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
No matter how defective our legislation may be, and how much delight noble and learned Members of another place may get from pointing out how defective our proceedings are, at any rate the law of the land stands until this House alters it. It is true that it may be interpreted by the judges and others, but as far as I know it would be a complete innovation that some other body—a body which is very much a creature of this House, under the Bill—should have the power to set aside something which we have done.
I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, although this may be a small matter in itself, it appears to be so astonishing an innovation that it ought to be considered seriously before the House is asked to adopt it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have said that I will look into any point of that kind. There can be no question of a court overruling a decision of the House of

Commons. All that could happen is that the House of Commons, of its own free will, would relinquish a decision to some other body. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is a decision, whichever way it may be taken, of the House and not something imposed upon it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am not saying whether I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) or whether I disagree with him, but it occurs to me that the test here, when the matter comes before the Restrictive Practices Court. will be, is this agreement for or against the public interest? The Court may come to a certain decision on such an agreement. But there may already be a matter which has already been dealt with by the Monopolies Commission where the decision might be contrary to the decision of the Court. It would be unfair to the person or combine concerned if that decision should stand in a contrary sense to the Court's decision.
A situation would arise in which one person would be ruled against by the Monopolies Commission while another person would have a decision in his favour, by the Court, on exactly the same ground. That is most undesirable. I should have thought that the Clause might serve a useful purpose in dealing with that difficulty and in seeing that equal justice is done.
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that if Parliament lays down a decision it ought not to be right for that decision to be reversed by someone else. but a principle arises here which must underlie the whole situation. The test will be what is in the public interest. For the court to decide that a certain agreement is not against the public interest, and yet to allow a decision by the Monopolies Commission to the contrary, on a similar agreement, to stand. would, in my opinion, be unjust.

Mr. Ede: After listening to my hon. and learned Friend, may I say that not for the first time he has added fresh terrors to my existence?

Question put and agreed to

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TEXPORT AGREEMENTS.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, after the first "of". to insert "subsection (4) of".
It might also be convenient to discuss the following Amendment, in line 15.
These are barely more than drafting Amendments. They catch up what was euphemistically called a simplifying Amendment in Clause 6, page 6, line 6. They catch up the exclusive export arrangement or agreement and move it from the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and under the aegis of the Board of Trade and the Monopolies Commission. As drafted, the Clause would exclude agreements dealing with exports if those agreements included any other form of agreement dealing with overseas trade. It was obviously not the intention of the Committee to allow agreements to escape just through the inclusion of some other provisions dealing with some other forms of overseas trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 15, leave out from "applies" to "the" in line 16 and insert
being an agreement under which restrictions are accepted in respect of" —[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, in page 21, line 23. to leave out subsection (2).
In moving this Amendment I hope to emulate my previous brevity. The benevolent purpose of the Amendment is rather hidden because it concerns a Clause which is not widely comprehensible. The purpose of subsection (2) appears to be that the Board of Trade is absolved from laying before Parliament a Report of the Monopolies Commission unless the Report states that conditions to which the 1948 Act applies are likely to operate against the public interest.
The Act of 1948 refers, with certain excluding provisos, only to exports in which the exporters are in a monopoly position or else have indulged in restrictive practices. Section 9 of that Act gives the President a very proper loophole to avoid the laying of the Report before Parliament in certain conditions. Those conditions are, briefly, when the disclosure of particular matters is against the public interest, and also when secret processes, or

the presence of mineral deposits, or damage to legitimate business interests are involved.
We think that Section 9 of the 1948 Act gives the President complete scope to absolve himself from laying a Report before Parliament, and that it is not, therefore, necessary to include this subsection. Certain important points of principle are involved. This subsection means, in so many words, that when the verdict is "guilty" it is given but that when it is "not guilty" there is absolute silence. That seems to be rather contrary to elementary principles of justice. I see that the President looks puzzled, but whether he is puzzled by the Clause or by my exposition—or by both—is a matter of some conjecture.
It is an important point of principle that unless there is some really important reason to the contrary, Parliament should know what the Commission reports. Commissions, as a rule, have a very high standard of work, but I think that at least part of that high standard must be due to the fact that their final Report is given to a very appreciative and, if necessary, critical audience. If this subsection is left in the Bill these conditions will not apply, so I suggest that the President should look at this important point of principle again to see what he can do to meet our objections.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Perhaps I may say that I certainly was not puzzled by the speech which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) was delivering. If I may say so, his speech was rather clearer, sometimes, than the Clause. If I had a frown it was caused by my doubt as to whether I could persuade hon. Members opposite that I was right about this point. I have a case to put which 1 ask hon. Members opposite, although they may probably disagree with me, to accept my sincere belief in, even though it is a difficult one to argue.
I favour publicity about these matters. I believe that it is better, on the whole, particularly in cases where the home trade is concerned—where the supply of goods is to consumers in this country—or if it forms any part of the arrangements. I believe that on balance people should know about it; they should know what is going on. Moreover, I do not share the view that publicity does a lot of damage to the industry concerned.
I really do not believe that the publication of the Reports of the Monopolies Commission can be said to have done a great deal of harm to any industry reported on. Very often it does show that many accusations which are made are quite unfounded. In many cases the industries come out with a completely clean bill of health; and sometimes, on the matters that are criticised, it is shown that wise men can hold very different opinions, even on the Monopolies Commission.
That relates to agreements which concern in some way the supply of goods at home, but here we are dealing with cases which are exclusively in the export field. Let me say absolutely fairly to the Committee what this Clause does if it is passed—because, of course, it is open to the Committee to vote against me if it disagrees. This Clause allows the Board of Trade not to publish a Report or a part of a Report dealing with a particular aspect of the export trade if, in fact, it is decided in the Report of the Monopolies Commission that the facts do not disclose something which is against the public interest. I want to be absolutely frank about this. The Clause is unashamedly designed to secure a greater degree of privacy about some of our export arrangements than I think can be attained under the law as it stands.
The hon. Member for Loughborough spoke about the public interest. He is quite right to draw attention to these provisions, but may I say that I think the provisions should be strictly construed? I do not want anyone occupying my position to have to start construing the public interest very loosely in order to hide export arrangements. I would rather be absolutely frank with the Committee. This deals with arrangements that are exclusively in relation to exports. I am not here concerned with an arrangement which restricts the supply of goods into this country in exchange for other arrangements overseas. That is a mixed agreement and comes under a different part of the Bill altogether. This is exclusively an export matter. What I want here is an arrangement whereby if it is decided that what is being done is not contrary to the public interest

we are not under an obligation to publish it all.
It may be inconvenient. It may not be strictly contrary to the public interest, in the widest sense, to publish it. Opinions can vary about privacy and publicity and their rival merits. But, on balance, I think that we will get better inquiries into and better Reports of some of these matters if we are not under an obligation to publish everything when, in fact, no harm is being done to anybody. I hope the Committee will weigh those as genuine and sincere arguments, and will support me here.

Mr. Cronin: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. So far as I can see, he already has all these powers under Section 9 of the 1948 Act. That Act specifically mentions public interest as being a reason for departing from the principle of laying the Report before the House. I therefore do not feel that there is real validity in his argument. At the same time, having had the benefit of the President's reassurance that he will not use this exemption in a way of which the Committee will disapprove, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 21, line 29, to leave out "unless, according to the" and insert:
Provided that where according to any such
Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take with this Amendment that in page 21, line 33, at the end to add:
this subsection shall not apply to so much of the report as relates to those conditions or to the things done as aforesaid
These are really drafting Amendments. based on the decision which we have just taken. As drafted, the Clause would mean that if any aspect of a voluminous agreement was contrary to the public interest we should have to publish the lot. Obviously, that is not the sense of what I have been saying. All these agreements are generally parcelled out into separate packages, and if one is found which is not contrary to the public interest, it need not be publicised.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 33, at end add:
this subsection shall not apply to so much of the report as relates to those conditions or to the things done as aforesaid ".—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26.—(PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES OF HIGH COURT AND COURT OF SESSION.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move in page 21, line 38, to leave out "three" and to insert "eight".

The Chairman: I think that this and the next Amendment, in page 21, line 43, to leave out "forty-two" and to insert "forty-seven" might be discussed together.

Mr. Grimond: This is a matter which we have already discussed, and the proposal in these Amendments may commend itself to the President of the Board of Trade.
I assume that at some time in our proceedings it was hinted that more judges might be needed for the Court. It may seem to smack rather of English nationalism because no similar increase is designed for Scotland. I feel that is rather a vulnerable point. However, if the Government should feel that more judges are necessary for the Court of Session, the necessary arrangements could, no doubt, be made at a later stage. It is not clear how much work there will be in England compared with Scotland, but it has been indicated that perhaps more judges may be needed.

Mr. Walker-Smith:: These Amendments are consequential on a previous Amendment which was moved for the purpose of increasing the judges to a minimum of three and a maximum of eight. That Amendment did not commend itself to the Committee. But there was another Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), the broad effect of which was to give power to increase the number of judges in the Restrictive Practices Court subject to a Statutory Instrument to be approved by Parliament.
That Amendment was accepted in principle, and so, in the next stage of the

Bill, we shall be in a position whereby it will be possible to increase the number of judges in the Restrictive Practices Court as need may develop. However, it is not, at any rate at present, thought necessary to increase the maximum number of judges of the High Court under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, because it is felt that if an increase in the number of judges in the Restrictive Practices Court were necessary the requirements could be met by this procedure.

Mr. Grimond: As this matter is to bc. discussed at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27, 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, in page 23, line 29, at the end to insert:
retail purchase; means any purchase irrespective of the price paid where the goods are obtained for the purchaser's own use and not for resale.
This Amendment is designed only to deal with the question of loss-leader. Where a manufacturer lays down a price, at present, under Clause 21, it appears that a trader could go into a shop next door and buy goods retail and then sell them off as loss-leaders. This Amendment, providing for a definition of "retail purchase ", means that the purchase must be for the purchaser's own use and not for resale.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I agree with the intention in this Amendment, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having moved it. The intention here is to prevent a consumer from being proceeded against under Clause 20 for reselling his goods at a lower price than he paid for them. The object is really to ensure that only a genuine consumer-purchaser should be exempt, and I think that that is what the Committee would really want.
I am not very happy about the wording, but I do agree that some provision to this effect is required. We do not want consumers to be proceeded against for loss-leading. On the other hand, we want to be quite certain that we catch anybody


else. If my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, I will look at this point before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Gresham Cooke:: Having had that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 23, line 36, at the end to insert:
and for the purposes of this Act any buildings, structures or other works so constructed or carried out shall be deemed to be delivered at the place where they are constructed or carried out.
The purpose of this Amendment is the necessary one of deciding into which category and, therefore, into which part of the Bill these various matters will fall. We have to have some test to ascertain whether it is home trade or export trade, or whether it is supply of goods overseas, in which case it would not be in the Bill. The test really must be that which is laid down here. The test shall be the place where they were constructed and carried out. I think that is as convenient and sensible a test as any, and I suggest that the Committee should adopt it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, to leave out subsection (3).
The object of this Amendment is to ask the President of the Board of Trade why this subsection is necessary. As I read it, it is designed to leave out from the purpose of the Act those companies which carry on business in this country through an agent. There are many such companies. Quite a number of important companies with headquarters overseas have either a subsidiary company or an agent here, and may yet make restrictive agreements of the kind which have to be registered so that the public may know about them and further inquiries can take place if necessary.
The President has just said that, on the whole, he is in favour of publicity. Therefore, I would have hoped that he would have agreed that there is no obvious need to exclude from the ambit of the Bill companies which carry on business in this country through an agent.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer is that it really is barely necessary. It is declaratory of what the law is. At the

same time, we have put this subsection into the Bill, and quite rightly, because while it may be plain to everybody here I think that this position ought to be plain to people overseas as well.
An American company, carrying on business in New York and represented by an agent over here, is manifestly not within the scope of the Bill. It could not be, and it would be foolish to try to place such a business within the scope of the Bill, because we would have no power to deal with the situation or to control it in any way. The only time when we could take control of the situation would be if, in fact, such a company were carrying on business over here. The arrangement whereby agents are not treated as carrying on business is common form in this matter.
As I say, on a strict interpretation doubt whether the subsection really is required at all. I have discussed this matter with my advisers and, on the whole, I am inclined to keep the subsection in the Bill in order to make quite plain to everybody what the situation is.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that these words would not enable a United Kingdom company to appoint an agent also in the United Kingdom who would then carry on the business in the United Kingdom and then argue that he was outside the provisions of the Bill? It does not say anything about the company having to be outside this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that is all right, but I will look at the point.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I take it from what the President of the Board of Trade says that if the agent makes an agreement in this country for his overseas principal, the overseas company is thereby carrying on business in this country and that such an agreement would be registered. I gather from what the President has said that the operative words in subsection (3) are
…by reason only of the fact:…
and that that is the strength of his contention that it is doubtful whether the Clause is necessary. I also gather, from the spirit in which he spoke, that this subsection will not exempt overseas companies which carry on business in this country and make agreements here.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is quite right. the words
…by reason only of…
are important. Assuming that the companies were carrying on business and entering into the mutual arrangements mentioned in Clauses 5 or 6, they would be caught up in it, but this deals simply with purely agency arrangements.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 24, line 2, to leave out from the first "Ireland" to the end of line 9.

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order, Sir Charles. This is a most important Amendment affecting the future activity of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and there is not a single Northern Ireland Member in the Chamber to give us any advice on it.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Irvine: The words which we want to leave out are words which have the effect that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, applies only to Northern Ireland if the Parliament of Northern Ireland desires it. The Clause, as drafted, expresses that proposition in the most unfelicitous language. As a matter of drafting, I think that it might be reconsidered, particularly the expression
…the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have the same power to pass Acts with respect to any matter as they would have had if this Act had not passed…
There is also the point—I dare say that it will be represented as a constitutional reform behind this Clause—that it has one curious result which is worth drawing attention to. It provides that if there is a conflict between an Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland and an Act of this Parliament, the Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament shall prevail; but it is just possible that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will want this Act to prevail and, in that event, some superfluous legislation would be necessary in that Parliament.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want to plunge too deeply into these difficult constitutional points. I am not sure whether this is the safest and best argument to rely on, but when the Socialist Government were faced with this problem precisely the same was done in the 1948 Measure. The Socialist Government at that time were faced with this problem, which was that we should apply, for our convenience and for the convenience of Northern Ireland, an Act of this kind without derogating in any way from the right of the Northern Ireland Government to legislate in comparable fields within its own territory. This form of words has been honoured by tradition, and I think that it fulfils the purpose which we had in mind.

Mr. Irvine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I should like to say a few words on the Motion that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: We have now passed that Clause, and I am now about to call the new Clause; I cannot go back. I am sorry—I know that I go rather quickly.

New Clause.—(REPORTS.)

(1) The Board of Trade shall include in the reports made under section sixteen of the Act of 1948 the report as to the operation of this Act in the year preceding that in which the report is laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) Every such report shall, amongst other things, include a review in such detail as the Board think fit of any suggestions and requests (not any suggestions and requests which appear to the Board to be frivolous) which have been made to the Board or the Registrar for the reference of any particular matter to the Restrictive Practices Court.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, where a request has been made to the Board by a body which in the opinion of the Board could properly claim to represent, for the purposes in question, the interests of any of the following, that is to say—

(a) consumers in Great Britain or a substantial proportion of those consumers;
(b) the organised workers of Great Britain;
(c) trade in Great Britain; 2 0 2


(d) industry in Great Britain;
(e) agriculture in England and Wales or in Scotland;
(f) any class of local authorities in England and Wales or in Scotland;
(g) the professional workers of Great Britain, of England and Wales or of Scotland, who are particularly concerned,
the review referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall, if the body so require, contain a specific statement that the request has been made by that body, and of the description of goods to which the request relates.

(4) Every such report shall, amongst other things, include a review in such detail as the Board thinks fit of

(a) the Agreements which have been made subject to registration under this Act;
 (b) the Agreements which have been registered; 
(c) proceedings which have been taken under this Act and the result thereof, and
(d) the grounds of the decisions given under section fifteen of this Act.—[Sir L. Plummer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
A little time ago the President said that he favoured publicity, and that he did so particularly in respect of goods that were designed for the consumer here. He further said that he did not believe that publicity did any harm at all to industry in general, and that even in particular it did no harm to the industries which had been examined by the Monopolies Commission.
The President will recognise that this new Clause, with the exception of subsection (4), is taken almost word for word from the Monopolies Act, 1948. The precedent for this is well-established. It is absolutely necessary that the work of the Court, as indeed the work of the Commission, should at all times be conducted, so far as its reports are concerned, in the bright light of publicity. I can visualise what we are likely to get when the Restrictive Practices Court first sits. At the beginning, at any rate, there will be a great deal of public and newspaper interest in what is going on. This interest will evaporate fairly soon after people get used to the establishment of so challenging and so novel an organisation.
Then the risk will face us that decisions will be taken and expressions uttered without the public knowing exactly why they are taken and why they are uttered. The Bill as it stands now—and I am afraid the Bill as it will go on the Statute
Book—does not give the same powers as that given by the Monopolies Act. In that respect it is a piece of legislation which is not as good as that Measure. But it will be far worse if it does not contain a Clause of this kind.
We are constantly hearing what is becoming established as a cliché in this House, that it is important that justice shall not only be done but that it should be manifestly clear that it is being done, or words to that effect. I think that we must here ensure that justice is done and that the reason why it has had to be done is clear to everybody. Unless we have a clear expression, in the form of reports, of the work of the Restrictive Practices Court, it seems to me that the whole nation will suffer, because it will not be beginning to understand and appreciate the work that the Court is doing.
I am enheartened by what the President had to say about publicity. It is a splendid thing that a politician of so considerable eminence and notable skill should give a lead to those people who say that publicity is something from which we should be shielded. We, of course, are always in favour of the maximum of publicity being obtainable on all our efforts in the House of Commons. Let us have the full light of publicity on the action of the Restrictive Practices Court.
Let us see that the nation knows what the Court is about and, above all, let us see that the nation understands not only that certain restrictive practices are bad, but why they are bad and why they work against the public interest. If the President intends to put real teeth into this Bill, I am sure that he can do it no better than by accepting the new Clause.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I thank the hon. Member for the kindly things that he has said about my desire for publicity in these matters, but I have another desire—which is the proper separation of functions and which has been occasionally described as too great a desire to have statutory tidiness of mind. The truth is, however, that it is not the Monopolies Commission that we shall be reporting upon.
I can go some way to meet the hon. Member's point, but I want this distinction to be quite clear. The Monopolies Commission was, in a sense, responsible to a Minister, who was responsible


to the House. He, quite rightly, had to make a full report and we could debate the Commission's activities and functions. But that is not the case here. This is part of the judiciary and the idea that we should have the same kind of debate about the activities of the judiciary as we can in the House of Commons about the activities of the Monopolies Commission is, of course, a contention which cannot be sustained. That does not mean that there are not opportunities for information on a more modest scale, and I think that the hon. Member may have had those in mind.
It would be right to produce an annual summary of statistics of registration. We agreed that it would be useful to know how many agreements were on the secret register and how many on the public register. We had a debate on that point a long time ago. I think that information of that kind—on the number of agreements on the confidential register, the proceedings which had been taken, the number of cases which had come before the Court—would be proper factual matters which could be properly reported upon without in any way suggesting a clash between the Executive and the judiciary.
I think it would be wrong if a Minister started reporting upon the working of the Court, because the working of the Court is a matter for the judiciary and not for the Minister, and we should very rapidly get into great danger. May I state my position? If what is wanted is a general, vast responsibility by a Minister over the judicial workings of the system, the answer would have to be, "No." If what is required—and I think that it is, though the new Clause goes wider—is the assurance of proper statistical information, and information on what was on the register. and so forth, which could properly be put forward, I will look at that point and, if necessary, provide for it in the Bill. I do not know whether that will be necessary. If it is, I could insert a provision at a later stage. In any event, I can assure the Committee that reports of that kind can properly be made available

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree that we do not need anything in the nature of a report dealing with the internal workings of the Court, and it is very right and proper for the President of the Board

of Trade to draw that distinction, but I am not sure that we do not want more than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. There is a High Court judge and two laymen on the Court. It is a hybrid Court. It is not a Court dealing with purely judicial questions as we have understood in the past. It is, as the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have said, in part making economic and social decisions.
We cannot escape our responsibility about those and they obviously must be matters with which the House of Commons and Parliament must keep in touch. We cannot just abandon the matters which are handed over to the Restrictive Practices Court in the Bill, wash our hands of them and say, "That is a judicial matter and we cannot do anything more about it."
It is vital to know how the Court is working and what effect its decisions are having on the general economy. It is not a matter of interfering with the workings of the Court or examining its workings in any way. It is a matter of accepting the decisions of the Court and relating them to the general economy and to Parliamentary responsibility.
A great deal has been said about the conflict between the jurisdiction of the Court and that of the Monopolies Commission. There is not a conflict of jurisdiction, because, under Clause 16. what the Court has to consider is within a smaller ambit and more restrictive than the public interest at large, in the sense that the public interest has to be considered either by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission or by Parliament.
We have, therefore, to approach the gap between the limited interpretation of public interest in Clause 16 and the unlimited application to the interpretation of and decision upon the public interest which are the duty of Parliament. One of the great difficulties of the Bill is that it contains nothing which connects the effect of the Court's decisions upon the economy with Parliament's responsibility for the economy. That is what is lacking, and we cannot abandon our duty and obligation upon that.
If we are to perform our duty we must have information in a form which is readily understandable and can be


dealt with in a convenient way. Therefore we must not only have statistical information to which the President has referred, but we must be in a position to understand the grounds for decisions and to understand whether the Bill, when it is an Act, is working and what is its effect upon the economy.
We can take a simple test. Section 14 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, refers to various matters which help to throw light on what is or is not in the public interest. There is the test of
the fullest use and best distribution of men, materials and industrial capacity in the United Kingdom 
There are other similar tests, dealing with the economy dynamically and not in the way in which Clause 16 of this Bill deals with it.
We must be able to relate the decisions of the Court with the public interest in the dynamic sense and for that we must have full information. I agree at once with the President that that does not involve any criticism of the workings of the Court or any investigation of the operations of the judges within the ambit of their judicial powers. It involves nothing of that kind. It involves merely accepting—not criticising or investigating—what the judges have done and the decisions made, and relating those to the general economy. I believe that for that purpose a reform on the lines which have been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) is really essential.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am prepared to produce the facts and figures that I have mentioned, but it would be unfair to the Committee if I were to leave hon. Members with the impression that I was going to report on judicial decisions and the reason for them to the House, because when a Minister reports he has responsibility. He must report on something for which he is responsible, and it must be made quite clear that the decisions of the Court are a matter for the Court and not for the Minister.
I agree that Parliament has great responsibility with regard to the public interest, part of which we are deciding upon now. We have to lay down where the public interest lies, and so on. We may change our opinion as time goes on.

Different views may be taken by different Parliaments, and no Minister would dare attempt to take that right from the House of Commons.
However, within the framework which at any time we lay down, if we allocate certain tasks to the courts, we must leave them to the courts. I do not know that there is a vast difference between us on these matters, and if I made available information on those questions which were asked earlier, as to how the register is working and what is in the confidential sector, and so forth, I think that that will meet the substance of the points made to me.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that every year the Inland Revenue makes a report in which, among other things, there is a record of the proceedings taken in the courts by the Inland Revenue during the year? We usually read in it that one or two taxpayers have been convicted for assaulting tax collectors. [An HON. MEMBER:" That is not a crime."] Is there any reason why we should not have some such information about the cases in the courts under this procedure as we have in the case of the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Arthur Holt: I do not understand this Amendment. Surely the activities of the Court will be reported like any other Court, so that all the information will be available. The point of view of the President of the Board of Trade is that this will not be presented by him in Parliament, but that we can go to the Library and there get all the facts we want. If that is the case, I do not understand the purpose of this Amendment. Is it the intention that something should be produced to Parliament which will not be available in the Library?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We want to have it in a convenient form.

Sir L. Plummer: I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said and I want to be helpful, but there is a great deal of difference between us. I want the white light of publicity and the right hon. Gentleman wants a farthing dip. I am not concerned with the workings of the Courts. I am concerned with the working of the Act. That is what I want to have debated whenever the House


thinks that is fit and proper. If something goes wrong in the courts of law today we do not discuss what the judges have said and how they behave; we discuss whether the Act which has caused the trouble is a good one or not.
My case is supported by paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4), namely,
(c) proceedings which have been taken under this Act and the result thereof, and
(d) the grounds of the decisions given under section fifteen of this Act
What we must have is an opportunity of discovering, first, what has been going on,

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[8.4 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.


Albu, A. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Anderson, Frank
Holmes, Horace
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A.J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, A. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Boyd, T. c.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Redhead, E. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Clunie, J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lewis, Arthur
Skeffington, A. M.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lingdren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Cronin, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.



Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.
Mr. Deer and Mr. J. T. Price


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Dance, J. C. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Deedes, W. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
du Cann, E. D. L.


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Ashton, H.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Atkins, H. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Fell, A.


Barber, Anthony
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Freeth, D. K.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Crouch, R. F.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Cunningham, Knox
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Black, C. W.
Currie, G. B. H.
Gibson-Watt, D.

secondly, what decisions have been reached, and, thirdly, above all else, what effect this is having on the economic life of the country and on the consumers of the country.

So, although 1 want to help the President of the Board of Trade, and time is passing, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.

Question put—

The Committee divided: Ayes 119 Noes 159

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Longden, Gilbert
Renton, D. L. M.


Green, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gresham Cook, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, A. G. F.


Grimond, J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, R. C.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Shepherd, William


Harvey-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Simon, J. E. S.(Middlesbrough, W.)


Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marples, A. E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich. W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Studholme, H. G.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holt, A. F.
Maude, Angus
Teeling, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mawby, R. L,
Thomas, Lesile (Canterbury)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thorneycroft Rt. Hon P


Howard, John (Test)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thronton-Kemsley, C.N.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Milllgan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Neave, Airey
Vosper, D. F.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E.&amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Oakshott, H. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Keegan, D.




Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kirk, P. M.
Pitman, I. J.
Woollam, John Victor


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pott, H. P.



Leavey, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leburn, W. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Mr. Godber and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.

Orders of the Day — Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEEDINGS OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 4, at beginning insert:
 Subject to rules made under section eighteen of this Act" —[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 25, line 12, to leave out "either in private or" and to insert "shall sit".

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to consider the Amendment in line 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley).

Mr. Fletcher: The object of my Amendment is to ensure that the Restrictive Practices Court shall sit in public, like all other courts. We were a little surprised to see that the Schedule proposed to give the Court power to sit either in private or in open court. Surely the sessions of the Court should be open to the public, like those of every other court. I do not know whether the provision to give the Court power to sit in private was inserted merely as a precaution. I hope that it will prove unnecessary in practice, and that we shall have an assurance from the President

that, unless there are over-riding reasons of security, all sessions of the Court shall be open to the public.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer is simple. The Restrictive Practices Court, like any other court, will be able to sit in public or private, and it will make its own judgment as to which is appropriate. There may be cases where part of an agreement is on the confidential register or there is reference to secret processes. The decision will be a matter for the Court and not for me. It will be a matter within the power of the Court, like any other judicial body.

Mr. Fletcher: It will not be like any other judicial body. The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have no power to sit in private. The general rule is that courts sit in public. It requires exceptional circumstances to give a court of record power to sit in private. I was distressed when the President said that this Court could, like all other courts, decide whether to sit in private or in public. The President says that this is not a matter for him, but the Committee should lay down what it thinks about it. It ought to be made clear that the Court will be expected to sit in public and not in private.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Court will normally sit in public like any other court. I do not think that the analogy with the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal is appropriate here. They are deciding pure matters of law. The Restrictive Practices Court will be deciding quite different questions of mixed law and fact, and sometimes economic judgment. If it is to do its job satisfactorily, we must not limit its power to sit in camera, if it so decides. It must have the right to do so. I have no doubt that it will be a right exercised in a judicial manner under the authority of a High Court judge.

Mr. Fletcher: Not wishing to press the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 25, line 14, leave out from "a" to "and" and insert "presiding judge."—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 25, line 14, at the end to insert "as assessors".
This is an important Amendment. We propose that the lay members of the Court should be assessors and should not participate in the Court's proceedings in the full way in which a judge does. We are dealing with the matter now upon the footing that the issue is a justiciable one, that we have here a Court dealing with the matter. We are not dealing with a decision on policy. We are not dealing with an inquiry. We are dealing with a Court addressing its mind to a justiciable issue in accordance with court procedure. It is on that footing that we have to approach the Amendment.
The Restrictive Practices Court has the same status as the High Court, and its judges should, therefore, also have the status of High Court judges. During the debates we have had some argument about the position of the members of the Court, and, as the result of all that, my hon. Friends and I are very much concerned about what will happen in this respect, the kind of people who will be appointed, the qualities which they will possess, and how far they can be regarded as on an equality with High Court judges.
During our debate tonight emphasis has been laid upon the importance of the judges of the Court not only being impartial, but appearing beyond all possibility of doubt to be completely impartial. An hon. Member referred to the case of the Egg Marketing Board, which is within everybody's memory. Of course, nobody is making any aspersion of any kind about any individual. I am merely emphasising not only the necessity of actual impartiality, but the appearance of impartiality.
The other thing is competence to deal with a matter as a judge is expected to deal with it. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has previously referred to people who would be appointed as lay members of the Court as those who will be getting towards the latter stages of their usefulness; but it seemed clear from the debate that what was contemplate—the only kind of person available—would be people no longer actually in the full spate of industrial activity. Obviously, that is not a desirable position. I do not want to base my case just on the quality of the laymen and on our concern for the quality of the lay members of the Court. I want to put the case on a rather different footing.
The Court will be dealing with a justiciable issue, approached as a court approaches such a problem. Questions of law will be reserved to the judge, but questions of fact and decisions on fact will be taken by the three members of the Court, the two lay members being appointed for their experience. However, if the members of the Court are to approach the problem as a court, they will have to decide on the evidence before them. The value of the lay members will not be as witnesses and will not be on matters within their knowledge which they can bring to bear as evidence which will be subject to consideration by the Court. The value of their knowledge will be merely as experience which will be available for interpreting and elucidating the evidence which is deployed before the Court. That will be their function. If that is their function, then, obviously, their position is to aid the judge.
They are not people who are experienced in the judicial process. They may have experience of industry, and so on, as required by the Bill, but no experience of the judicial process, which is precisely the experience, the qualification, which is


required to come to a judicial conclusion. Their value to the Court is, and they are on the Court, because they can throw light upon the evidence and assist the Court in that way, but it does not follow from that that they should be members of the Court. Far from it, because their experience, knowledge and qualification do not qualify them to be a judge. They qualify them certainly to help in interpreting the evidence, but that is exactly what assessors are for.
That is precisely the role of assessors and they are in the Court to do a job which is exactly the job of an assessor. Their virtue and value to the Court is exactly that.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: indicated dissent.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The President shakes his head. They are not relying upon their outside knowledge in coming to a conclusion directly. Their outside knowledge is available only for the purpose of interpreting and elucidating the evidence, and not in coming to any conclusion independently of the evidence. Of course, it has to be done by interpretation and understanding of the evidence and the decision must be reached on the evidence deployed before the Court. It therefore seems to us that on this ground of principle, apart from questions of qualification which were so fully canvassed at an earlier stage of our discussions, the proper course is to make the two lay members of the Court assessors.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has moved his Amendment with his customary skill and persuasiveness, but, unfortunately, in this case it has led him to a wrong conclusion. In pressing that the lay members of the Court should be assessors, the hon. and learned Member indicated that in his view their function was to interpret evidence. He seemed to think that the fact that they were to interpret evidence was not a judicial function which would entitle them to be full members of the Court. I must remind the hon. and learned Member of the practice with regard to assessors on the one hand and lay members of a court, or tribunal, on the other.
I suppose that although assessors are to be found in various proceedings under the

provisions of Section 98 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, they are best known in the Admiralty Division. In the Admiralty Division, assessors are Elder Bretheren of Trinity House and their function is to advise the court on matters of nautical skill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has experience in that as in many other courts and will recall that where one has assessors in the Admiralty Division the responsibility of the decision and the weight to be attached to the evidence, which is the real function of interpretation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, rests exclusively upon the judge.
Indeed, where one has assessors in the Admiralty Division, they are, in a sense, almost in substitution of expert evidence, because where Trinity Masters are present, evidence as to matters of nautical skill and practice is inadmissible and may not be given. The sort of case which can come before the Restrictive Practices Court will have nothing in common with that sort of case in which assessors are appropriate. They will be not nautical, but economic cases.

Mr. G. Lindgreen: Naughty cases

Mr. Walker-Smith: They will not even be naughty cases of the kind which evidently give so much pleasure to the hon. Member. They will be cases in which the function of the lay members will be to assist in the judging of the case and they will assist by bringing their background skill and experience to the weighing of the evidence. In other words, so far from being excluded from the weighing of the evidence, as they would be if they were assessors, they will be intimately and closely identified with it.
There are many good precedents which are much closer than the collision cases which one dealt with in the Admiralty Division. For instance, there is the Lands Tribunal, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is probably familiar. In that case, the lay members are full members of the court, and they do their work admirably. Then there is the General Claims Tribunal—in which, again, the lay members are full members of the


court. They also do their work admirably. Those cases are much closer to this, and so it is appropriate that these lay members, with all the qualifications prescribed by Clause 4 (1), should be full members and take their part in assisting in judging these matters.
There is one final practical point of great importance. Every hon. Member, whatever may be his view about the proper approach to this matter, will agree about the desirability of lay members being of the highest possible quality. I ask the Committee to believe that we are much more likely to get people of the

Division No. 191.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.


Anderson, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holmes, Horace
Parker, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.



Benson, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, A. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A, F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Redhead, E. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwtck)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford,
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Cronin, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edelman, M.
Messer, Sir F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oram, A. E.



Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Braine, B. R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Finlay, Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cole, Norman
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Ashton, H.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Atkins, H. E.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Godber, J. B.


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crouch, R. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cunningham, Knox
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, J. C. G.
Green, A.


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Body, R. F.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bossom, Sir A. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hay, John


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

high quality which we require under Clause 4 (1) if they are given the status of lay members rather than tacked on as technical assessors in the way in which the Amendment provides. I do not want to go into the matter at greater length, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reflect on my remarks and conclude that the Government are right in their approach.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided Ayes 108, Noes 149.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Holt, A. F.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Russell, R. S.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharpies, R. C.


Howard, John (Test)
Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, William


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.
Mathew, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)
Maude, Angus
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Teeling, W.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Molson, A. H. E.
 Thorneycroft Rt. Hon. P.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Neave, Airey
Touche, Sir Gordon


Keegan, D.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th.E. &amp; Chr'oh)
Turner, H. F. L.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Oakshott, H. D.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Kerr, H. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Kershaw, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kirk, P. M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Leavey, J. A.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Leburn, W. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitman, I. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Linstead, Sir H. N
Pott, H. P.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert
Profumo, J. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter



Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Renton, D. L. M.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, J. E.
Mr. Hughes-Young.

Amendment made: In page 25, line 20, leave out "president" and insert "presiding judge."— [Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 25, line 22, to leave out paragraph 6 and to insert:
6. Each member of the Court shall give separately the reasons for his decision.
I will deal briefly with this Amendment. It brings to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade a point which has been troubling us. The Schedule provides that the judgment of the Court shall be delivered by the president. What is not provided for is separate judgments by the separate judges. I will put my points to the right hon. Gentleman without developing them in any way.
First, we are entitled to know who make what decisions in the Court. Here, for instance, it is quite possible to have the two lay judges, over a period of time, outvoting the judge of the High Court; yet the whole status of the Court is derived from the fact that a High Court judge is the president. That is a false and misleading position. Therefore, we should have separate judgments from the three judges. They are dealing with difficult questions of economic policy, etc., and we want to know how the economic members of the Court decide and how the judicial member of the Court decides. The country is entitled to know.
Secondly, it is an extraordinary position where we have a provision that the judgment shall be delivered by the president, who will be the High Court judge, when it need not be his judgment at all. We may, time and again, have judgments delivered by the president to which he himself does not subscribe. What does one expect? Does one expect the High Court judge to say, "I shall now deliver a judgment which I have written but with not one word of which I agree"? Or is be lust to sit there and lend the sanction of his presence and his judgment to something which is not his at all?
I appreciate that there are courts, like the Privy Council and others, where no separate judgments are given. I have given the reasons why I think there should be separate judgments in this Court. At the moment I cannot recollect a court where the judgment has to be given by a judge who may disagree with the judgment, but that is what is provided for. Apparently, the High Court judge is to act as a secretary to the tribunal to deliver the judgment and to give it the sanction of his own status. It really is a rather ridiculous position. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this somewhat undignified provision before we reach the Report stage.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman has adverted to some inconvenience which he thinks may result from the procedure contemplated in the


bill, but there would also be inconveniences if there were to be separate judgments on these issues delivered by each member of the Court. The Committee will appreciate that it is not normal to have separate or dissenting judgments expressed in a court except from the point of view of the consideration of the law. For example, a dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal is something which the House of Lords considers.
Here questions of law are reserved exclusively to the judge, so there can be no question of the judge being over-ruled on any question of law. Matters on which a common judgment will be given are matters of, as it were, mixed fact and economic background judgment. On those matters I do not think we need, or indeed should, contemplate the strict dichotomy, and still less the inherent conflict, which the hon. and learned Gentleman seems almost to suggest between the judicial member on the one side and the lay members on the other.
If the Court comes to a decision, it is true that it will come to a majority decision if there is an irreconcilable conflict. It could happen in such a case that the judge could conceivably give a judgment from which he personally dissented, in the same way as might happen in any court such as the Privy Council where the actual make-up of the decisions is not revealed.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: But the provision is that
The judgment of the Court in any proceedings shall be delivered by the president.
Even if he disagrees completely with the judgment, nevertheless, the High Court judge must be the person to give the judgment. There is no provision like that in the Privy Council.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No; that, of course, is true, because here there is one High Court judge who is presiding over the particular Court and is the appropriate member to give the judgment. Of course, if that were to be varied, then the principle of the unity of judgment would go, and if we were going to vary it, we might as well do it in a more frank and open manner than that.
I would just add that I do not think that we ought or need to contemplate the sort of situation which the hon. and

learned Gentleman has suggested as possible—that of the High Court judge being constantly over-ruled and outvoted. I do not think it would happen, if we look at the realities of the matter. I think it is very unlikely that a judge would wish to sit in a court with which he found himself constantly at variance.
I think that that is the reality of the matter, as hon. Members will appreciate, because when the judge is nominated in the Restrictive Practices Court, it is to be anticipated that the members of the Court will in fact be able to work as a team; and I do not think we ought to view the situation in terms of any necessary or probable conflict between the lay members on the one side and the judicial member on the other. Though I do not say that there are no inconveniences in regard to this method I think that the inconveniences of the method suggested in the Amendment outweigh those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is an astonishing proposition that a High Court judge should withdraw from the Court because he was in constant disagreement with the two other members of it, if that is what the Parliamentary Secretary implies. What it implies is the end of independent judgments, and that is one thoroughly good reason why we should have the judgments separately given—precisely for that reason, among others.
Of course, no judge would withdraw from a court because of constant disagreement with the other members of the court. It is one of the guarantees of justice that he is there, and does express his judgment and give it independently. The members should not be chosen as a team, but for their independent judgment, and one guarantee of independent judgment is that individual judgments should be delivered and not just be given by the president of the court. What the Parliamentary Secretary has said really undermines the basis of independent judgment and of faith in the courts. It really is quite extraordinary.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to get, and still less to give, though inadvertently, any false impression about this matter. I have already said that I regard the


situation to which he refers—that of constant disagreement and constant minority —as being a most improbable situation indeed, and for this reason. The evidence will be given before the Court, two members of which have a certain background of economic knowledge and the third of which has an expertise in the interpretation and assessing of evidence. I do not think it at all probable that, when all three listen to the same evidence, and when the judge has the known power of assessing evidence, he will find himself constantly in a minority. Quite frankly, I cannot contemplate such a situation as being within the realms of probability, and barely of possibility.

Mr. E. Fletcher: This situation is really most unsatisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary has been talking about constant disagreement between the judges and the lay members, but it is quite sufficient for our purpose if there is a disagreement in one particular case, or in two particular cases between the judge and the other members. From the point of view of the industry concerned in any particular case, it is their case that matters. What the Parliamentary Secretary has just said is in violent conflict with what he was saying a few moments ago.
I really must ask the President to reconsider the matter. He has just rejected an Amendment which suggested that the two lay members should be assessors. The right hon. Gentleman rejected that proposal on diametrically opposite lines to those on which he is now resisting this Amendment. There are two courses open to the Board of Trade. It can say that it would like the two lay members to be assessors, in which case we should know once and for all that they were acting purely as assessors and that the judgment of the Court was the judgment of the judge. But the Government rejected that proposal on the precise ground that they wanted the lay members to be, not assessors but full and independent members of the Court, with the same status as that of the High Court judge who presides.
If that is what they want, then each of the three members of the Court must have independence and must each have the right to come to separate and perhaps different conclusions from the others. It may well happen—and I am concerned
even if it may happen in only one or two cases—that the three members, acting with complete independence and impartiality, which ex hypothesi everybody wants, come to different conclusions. It may well happen that, with the best will in the world, the two lay members come to a conclusion different from that of the president.
In that event, surely the parties and the public are entitled to know the views of each member of the Court. The duty ought not to be put upon the presiding judge of giving the judgment of the Court as though he had agreed with it when in fact he had not agreed with it. If it were to happen, even in one case, that the High Court judge had placed upon him the duty of giving as the judgment of the Court something with which he disagreed, that must be wrong. This judgment is open to appeal in the Court of Appeal. The facts can be reviewed. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it may depend upon a balance of mixed facts and mixed law, and possibly economic considerations.

Mr. Ede: They are sure to be mixed.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter, in fairness to the parties and in fairness to the public, because the kind of decision which the Court will have to reach in some cases is similar to those which the Monopolies Commission has reached, and the President himself knows that the Monopolies Commission is frequently divided. He takes credit, for instance, for not having implemented the Report dealing with tyres because in that case the Commission was divided. The same thing may happen here, and the parties are entitled to know what each member of the Court thinks.
The procedure suggested is most unsatisfactory, and I hope the President will reconsider it.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I hope that in the closing moments of this prolonged Committee stage the Government will undertake to look at this again. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is quite right; it matters not whether there are a constant succession of cases in which the deciding judge is at variance with the two lay members of the Court or whether there are only one or two such cases.


Even if there are only one or two such cases, it will be an absurdly undesirable thing to have a presiding judge delivering judgment based upon facts which he thinks are wrongly arrived at.
It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the decision will contain law and facts. There will be a great many facts, and it is surely very undesirable that a High Court judge should have imposed upon him the responsibility, which has never been imposed on a High Court judge before, of setting out, as part of a judgment, findings of fact which he believes to be mistakenly arrived at. This is a strong proposition, and how better could the Government facilitate the completion of the remainder of the long Committee stage than by saying that they welcome the opportunity to reconsider this matter?

Mr. David Weitzman: I am reluctant to prolong the debate at this late hour, but this is rather an important point. The arguments addressed on the previous Amendment about the assessor were rejected by the President, and it seems to me that if these members of the Court are not assessors but are judges in a real sense, each of them coming to a decision, it is quite wrong to contemplate the situation in which a High Court judge himself is not in agreement with the two lay members but yet has to give a decision on behalf of the three members of the Court.
After all, if one compares it with the procedure in the Court of Appeal, where decisions are given by three judges, and it is stated that one judge may dissent and the other two agree, there is no reason why that procedure should not be followed here. From the point of view of the judge himself it is only right and proper that a decision should be given by each member of the Court.
There is, of course, a second consideration; that here we do value the opinions, and the decisions made by each of the members of the Court. A great deal of stress has been laid on that in the debates on the various Amendments. For those reasons, I submit that this is surely a matter about which the President could think again and alter his decision.

Amendment negatived

Amendment made In page 25, line

23, leave out "president" and insert "presiding judge."—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

Orders of the Day — SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).——[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make additional provision for payments in respect of certain unfit houses subject to compulsory purchase, clearance. demolition or closing orders, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing—

A That where a house was vacated before, but was still in existence on, the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, the provisions of the said Act of the present Session shall have effect as if the house had been vacated immediately after that day.
B. That a house which might have been the subject of a demolition order but which has, without the making of such an order, been demolished in pursuance of an undertaking to that effect given to the local authority shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session to have been vacated at the date of its demolition in pursuance of a demolition order made and served at the date when the undertaking was given;
C. That the calculation for the purposes of any provision of the said Act of the present Session of compensation in accordance with subsections (1) and (4) of section forty of the Housing Act, 1936, shall be made as if paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act of 1936 had not been passed.—[Mr. Powell.]

8.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): It might be convenient if I indicate briefly to the Committee the reasons for the three paragraphs into which this Money Resolution


falls. With regard to paragraph A, the existing Money Resolution makes no reference to the requirement in the Bill that an owner-occupier should have been in occupation of his house on 13th December, 1955, to qualify for the higher compensation. It has, therefore, been possible to discuss whether in certain circumstances the higher compensation should not be payable also where the owner-occupier had left the house either under some compelling necessity or by way of co-operation with the local authority in a slum clearance programme.
There is, however, a difficulty when it is sought to apply that concession in the case, not of compulsory purchase order but of clearance, demolition or closing order where, of course, no purchase takes place and where the only effective act is the vacation of the house by reason of a clearance, demolition or closing order. As the existing Money Resolution stands, the higher compensation is only payable where the house is so vacated on or after 13th December, 1955. Therefore, to make it possible for a concession to be made in the case of clearance, demolition and closing orders, as it is already possible to make in the case of compulsory purchase orders, paragraph A of this Money Resolution is necessary.
Paragraph B of the existing Money Resolution applies the Bill to the compulsory clearance of houses by any of the four types of order about which I have just been speaking. It does not allow for the case in which the clearance takes place by agreement between the owner and the local authority, and, of course, this is particularly relevant if one is making a concession before 13th December, 1955, since it is then no longer open to the local authority and the owner to resort to the compulsory procedure in order to qualify under the Bill and under the Money Resolution as it stands. Paragraph B, therefore, makes it possible for the House by an Amendment, if it be so desired, to place demolition by agreement upon the same footing as demolition by compulsion.
As regards paragraph C, it has been argued both on Second Reading and in Committee that the purpose of the House in the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Bill might be frustrated by the terms of the Fourth Schedule of the principal Act.

It would be improper for me to enter upon that question now or to discuss the advisability or otherwise of an Amendment designed to remove any such danger. But the effect of paragraph C is that the House, if it so desires, when we come to that stage, can eliminate the provisions of the Fourth Schedule for the purposes of the Bill, and can thus meet the danger to which hon. Members at earlier stages have drawn attention.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will be altogether surprised to find that we are somewhat critical of the Money Resolution, not so much because it may not be necessary for what he now has in mind but because he did not have these things in mind earlier, and the original Money Resolution was so tightly drawn that the Government now find themselves hoist with their own petard, not for the first time. This is the third occasion within the last two or three months on which the present Government have had to introduce a second Money Resolution because they have drawn their first one so tightly that that which they had forgotten to do or that about which they changed their minds in the course of the Bill could not be covered by the first Resolution.
That leads one to consider something about Money Resolutions in general, and I may remind the Parliamentary Secretary that on this side of the Committee we have protested again and again about the increasing tightness of Money Resolutions under this Government. It may be said in reply that every Opposition does that. I think that is true, but I think that an Opposition by doing it is merely maintaining the proper functions of Parliament and preventing the Government of the day from hopelessly restricting the proper discussion of a Measure during the Committee stage and indeed possibly later.
I have been looking at the history of this matter and I make no apology for taking a minute or two to remind the Committee that this is a question which came up in an acute form in the House before the war. It arose as a result of a number of Money Resolutions on Bills in the difficult and hard times of the early 1930s.
It so happens that the one on which it came to a head was the Depressed Areas


(Development and Improvement) Bill, 1934, when the attention of Mr. Speaker Fitzroy was called to the exceeding narrowness of the Money Resolution. He observed that
under the new procedure which has been adopted by this House for some years now, Members are very much restricted in their powers to move Amendments either on a Resolution itself or indeed on the Committee Stage of a Bill.
He went on to say
 If I were asked for my opinion on the subject, I should say that not only has the limit been reached, but that it has been rather exceeded in the amount of detail which is put in a Money Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1934; Vol. 295, c. 1236.]
I wish to deal with the point about the amount of detail that is put into a Money Resolution. This is a comparatively short and minor Bill, as the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend themselves told us on Second Reading. The Money Resolution that was brought in in connection with it set out practically the whole terms of the Bill—I do not say quite all of them, there were some loopholes. The hon. Gentleman, when pressed, found himself able to discover, I think, a couple of them which, in fact, had no practical importance, or comparatively little, in subsequent proceedings. But certainly there was plenty of the Money Resolution. Here it is, a whole printed page of Money Resolution.
What happened after that? A Select Committee was set up, and finally, as a result of its Report, a circular was sent round at the instance of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was the Prime Minister at the time, and, omitting the introductory parts of it, what he intended in the name of the Government to secure was that
 financial resolutions in respect of Bills shall be so framed as not to restrict the scope within which the Committee on the Bills may consider amendments further than is necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure …
Can it be seriously said that any one of the three points that we have raised today infringe in the least on that responsibility of the Government?
Then we were
to leave to the Committee the utmost freedom for discussion and amendment of details which is compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1937; Vol. 328. c 1595.]

Surely if that instruction had been followed and were being followed now, as it ought to be, we should not be considering this second Money Resolution today because the original Money Resolution would have been framed in the proper spirit to cover this sort of thing. That, of course, was not the end of the story. I have been looking at the history of second Money Resolutions, and I say at once—and the hon. Gentleman can make such use of this as he thinks fit—that there were a good many of them in the earlier years of the Labour Government. We were dealing with very complicated Measures—Measures that involved far bigger considerations and far more complicated considerations than anything involved in this Bill.
I turn to HANSARD of the 30th January, 1946, when, in respect of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, a discussion about a Money Resolution began at a quarter to Ten at night and proceeded until three minutes to Three in the morning. I hope that we shall not be quite as long as that. But out of the choice fruits of that discussion, I cull one or two remarks.
First, I quote Mr. Reid, the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, as he then was, and, one would agree, a highly-responsible and learned Member. He observed as follows
Similar previous Bills have contained provisions about it"—
the matter that was under discussion—
and the matter ought to be open to argument, not only as to whether, but how, there should he compensation. As a result of the very tight drawing of the Resolution, we can only discuss half the problem. This is not the first time that the method of drawing Financial Resolutions has caused a great deal of trouble in this House. It comes up periodically"—
he was a prophet—
 under Governments of all complexions
Then he referred to 1934.
If I turn over a page or two I come to some observations by someone whom, I think in the circumstances, we must regard as an even more potent authority. That right hon. Gentleman said:
For many years in this House I have listened to debates on Financial Resolutions on important Bills.
He then referred to his youth, as is the way of some right hon. Gentlemen, and
then went on to observe:
This practice of drawing the Financial Resolution in such a way as practically to


preclude debate on the Committee stage has been growing for many years. Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, in his judgment from the Chair upon the Depressed Areas Bill, which 1 very well remember, told us how much he, as the guardian of the rights of the House of Commons, deplored it, and as a result there was a great protest, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1022–34.]
and so on.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says, and quite rightly, that this is an important matter and that it involves the proper functioning of the House, if I may summarise what he said. That right hon. Gentleman is at the moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in whose name this unfortunate Money Resolution was put down today, as was the tight Money Resolution, the one which has caused all the trouble, which was put down earlier when we were considering the Second Reading of the Bill. There is not the least doubt that there is this incessant tendency of the Government of the day to encroach upon the rights of the House and on the opportunities for proper discussion, particularly during the Committee stage, by putting down a Money Resolution in so tight a form that at the end of the day the Government find that they have got to bring in another one.
I turn for a moment to the three particular points that were raised today. Surely, no one can say that, though, of course, they have their importance, they are anything but matters of detail. Quite clearly, even the Government did not think beforehand—and that applies particularly to the first point—or else they have really allowed themselves to be rushed into something that they did not intend. I do not think that the second conclusion is the right one. I believe that every one of these points is quite clearly a case where the Government did not think beforehand.
As regards the first point, the Government considered one form of order or administrative action which they were proposing to deal with in the Bill, and they entirely omitted to remember that there were others as well. That is the reason for the first of these points. I feel particularly sore about the second one. That is the point about houses which are demolished, not under an order, but because the person responsible, the owner of the house, knows that the

council has demolition powers, and very sensibly he and the council come to agreement about it.
It is precisely the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) in the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill quite recently, which was accepted by the Government. I understand that there was a great deal of that in Coventry, and all credit to the council for it. It is much the best and most sensible way to do it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept from me that we on this side of the Committee noticed that omission, wanted to remedy it and were only precluded from doing so by the terms of the original Money Resolution.
9.15 p.m.
What are we to do in future? Are we to put down many Amendments on the Order Paper which we know perfectly well to be out of order? Are we to tax the already somewhat overstrained printing capacity of the House, tax the patience of the people who have to consider the Order Paper, on the chance that that which we think ought to be done and is at the moment outside the purview of a Money Resolution will be accepted by this irresolute Government, and a second Money Resolution introduced?
Is that what we are to do? Up to date we, on this side of the Committee, at any rate, have taken the view that we were supposed to read a Money Resolution like reasonable intelligent people, to consider what it allowed us to do and what it did not allow, and confine ourselves to putting on the Order Paper Amendments which we knew were in order, or at any rate on the borderline, and not to put forward Amendments which were completely out of order.
This second point, so far as I know, was never mentioned on Second Reading, and I do not think that it was mentioned in Committee. If it was, it was out of order, because it was not in the terms of the Money Resolution at the time. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend, with the help of their advisers, have been looking at the past or thinking about what they might have done before and are now introducing the point on their own accord. The Parliamentary Secretary will not expect me to feel otherwise than a little sore when this is exactly what we wanted to do and we could not do it, because of the terms of the Money Resolution.
The third of these points is really the worst of the lot. What it comes to is that under the Bill as originally drawn, there was a good intention, which we all shared, to give some extra benefits to a particular type of person—broadly speaking the owner-occupier who had been driven to what is commonly called an insanitary house and had to buy it because he could not find anywhere else to live. On Second Reading, it was pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend and to the rest of the House of Commons by two hon. Members that there was a paragraph in one of the Schedules in the Housing Act, 1936, which would completely prevent that good intention being carried out.
Again I am not arguing on the merits of the matter. I am not concerned with them. Let us take them when we come to them, but the real point was put quite definitely, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) but also by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), and they both have very considerable experience of local government. I pay the compliment to the hon. Member for Norwich, South that I often pay, with even greater cordiality, to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes —that any Minister who does not listen to what they say is a little foolish. But did the Ministers listen? They did not.
They went ahead, carried the Second Reading of the Bill, negatived an Amendment that raised an entirely different point, and proceeded at once to the Money Resolution on the Order Paper, without considering what those two hon. Members had said. And they had drawn the Money Resolution so tightly that, as it turns out, that Resolution was unfit to give them the main remedy which they were trying to seek in the Bill.
I agree that it was a semi-technical point, a point of law and a matter of reading a statute. I concede all that to the Parliamentary Secretary, but who knows more about housing than the Ministry? After all, it is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and if people in the Ministry cannot go and read through the principal Act and consider the effect of the terms of that Act on what they propose to do in a Bill of this sort, they must indeed be a much

more incompetent collection than for one moment I believe them to be.
I do not believe that the responsibility is there at all. I believe that the Minister, who for good reason is not here tonight, and the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members opposite, were in too much of a hurry. They said, "There are some municipal elections coming along. Let us demonstrate with this Bill, and let us see whether we can catch a few votes in a highly marginal situation before polling day." Then they did not prepare the Bill properly, and omitted things which they ought to have put into it. One of the things which they omitted might have hamstrung the Bill, and they did not see the point.
That is not the way to govern, and that is not the way to prepare Bills and Money Resolutions, although we accept that in the fix into which these hon. Members have got themselves by their own haste and incompetence, there is nothing for it but this Money Resolution. The Government will not get the sense that they now want put into the Bill inserted in any other way, but we say to them," Do not do it again. If you cannot stop doing it, get out and give way to a government that has more sense"
Secondly we say to them, "Whatever government you are, whether you are Conservative or Labour or anything else, have regard to the rights of the House and its Committees in these matters, and do not do what it took so long to repress before the war, and prevent the Opposition in any circumstances raising real points in Committee by tying them up by means of a Money Resolution in this way. You will not get freedom or democracy in this country by trussing the Opposing inside Money Resolutions. Just give them a little rope and hope that they will hang themselves—and they will probably hang you."

Mr. James MacColl: My only comment on what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is that I have been astonished that he has been able to control himself and speak with such moderation and charity on this matter. As he said, this is a very technical question. Not many people are able to steer their way, as is my hon.


and learned Friend, through many intricacies and Queen's Recommendations and Money Resolutions. These matters always come up at a late hour in the evening, as this Money Resolution has tonight, when hon. Members are impatient to get on to other business and to get away. It is a subject which most hon. Members regard as not within their ordinary interest, but it raises an important question of the freedom of this House to carry out its legislative functions in a way which the public expect us to do.
It is true that this is not the first time that a second Money Resolution has been introduced; and it is not the first time that complaints have been made about it by Oppositions. Of course, any Government can always get away with any wrong they commit by saying that something of the same sort has happened before. But not only is this one of a series of second Money Resolutions which have come up recently, but this is the second time within a very short period, in dealing with a Housing Bill, that a Committee, regardless of which side, has found its hands tied and its ability to discuss the Bill constructively seriously limited.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) has just left the Committee. I recollect that on the Housing Subsidies Bill he, the representative of a great local authority association, speaking with the collective wisdom of the powerful local authorities behind him, found that a series of Amendments were ruled out of order simply because of the Money Resolution. It is true that we were able to discuss them, but only because my hon. and learned Friend is an exceptional person. I suggest to you, Sir Rhys, that it is not right that the ability of Parliament to function properly should depend upon having about the place somebody like my hon. and learned Friend, who is ingenious enough to be able to wriggle round very tight Money Resolutions.
Everyone would accept that one cannot give unlimited freedom to the House to start increasing the charge on public moneys, but we say that there is no case for drawing Money Resolutions so tightly that the ordinary, fair examination of the obvious points of a Bill is hamstrung.

In this Committee and in the Standing Committees we examine Bills dispassionately faithfully and constructively as legislators. It is not an elaborate game with the draftsmen, trying to twist the rules of order. It is childish to suggest that grown men are spending their time trying to get things discussed which ought not to be discussed. It is time some people addressed themselves to the question of what we are sent here to do. Is it to play a childish game, or is it to get on with the job of examining highly technical and complicated Bills with a view to seeing whether we can make them more effective?
In the Bill there were only three broad problems—by whom was the compensation to be paid, to whom was it to be paid and how much would it be. We discussed the first question in a reasoned Amendment on Second Reading. We were not able to discuss it any further. It might be argued that the House had expressed an opinion on Second Reading and that we should not go over the matter again in Committee. However. the questions raised in paragraphs B and C of the Resolution were questions which were well known to be in the minds of hon. Members and other people concerned with these matters. The one relating to the Coventry agreements was discussed on a previous Bill, and it was known to be just the kind of point which would arise on the present Bill and which any conscientious Member of the Committee would wish to look at. There was no reason at all for having the Money Resolution drawn so narrowly as to cut it out. Paragraph C deals, in rich human terms which send a warm thrill through the minds of all people interested in local government, with what is known as "paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule", a highly interesting point dealing with the question of what deductions may be made from compensation because of the insanitary nature of the property being acquired.
When the Money Resolution came to be discussed, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to explain it, and inquired whether the phrase specifying the sum would be wide enough to cover the point relating to the Fourth Schedule. Instead of the Parliamentary Secretary saying, "I am sorry. It will not be in. I recognise that all who are concerned about this will want


to examine the point, and I will produce another Money Resolution ", he merely said, "No, it will not." He read out the definition and made it clear that the point was excluded.
The Government, well knowing that they were cutting out the discussion that we are now going to have, deliberately pushed the Money Resolution through, in order, presumably, to prevent further discussion of the matter in Committee. We now find that a pressure of opinion from local authorities and others concerned has been built up, about which we warned the Government. We must assume that some opinion has been developed—I do not know what the case is—which has led to a change. The Government are now having to move the House back into Committee, and this represents a waste of time which could have been avoided if the Government had been intelligent about the original Money Resolution.
9.30 p.m.
I suggest that this is something which should be studied. It is obviously a dangerous temptation to try to avoid awkward questions by drawing a tight Money Resolution and cutting out discussion. It is a temptation into which all Governments are likely to fall, but from the point of view of the people m local government who have to operate the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act, and of tenants and owner-occupiers and the people upon whom the burden will fall, it is a temptation which the Government ought to resist.
The Government should consider this matter, not to see how smart they can be in getting one across the Opposition and stopping my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering from getting in some good points, but rather from the point of view of seeing whether they can safeguard public money and, at the same time ensure that there can be a broad discussion on the main implications of the Bill. I hope that in getting this Money Resolution through, the Government will not again fall into this grievous error.

Mr. Ede: I am very glad that the Leader of the House is present, because this is not a matter with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can effectively deal, competent as we know he is. If I address myself more to

the Lord Privy Seal than to the Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure that he will understand the reason. This is the third occasion since Christmas on which we have been faced with a second Money Resolution on a Government Bill. The first was on the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, where, in Committee, at least half a dozen Amendments, which the Government themselves wanted to make could not be made, because the Money Resolution had been drawn too tightly.
The first edition was found not to cover all the points with which the Government wanted to deal, so a second Money Resolution was produced. As a result of conversations which I had with the Lord Privy Seal, when he very kindly met my point, a third edition was produced, which enabled a further discussion to take place, but on that occasion the amended Resolution was to tightly drawn, that the exact point which we wanted to raise was ruled out of order.
There was a Money Resolution for the Road Traffic Bill in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was interested and an Amendment which the Government wanted to introduce was ruled out.
Tonight, we have a third example. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering has shown that this is a matter which periodically arises. Those of us who have been hon. Members for a few years know that these things may happen irrespective of which Government may happen to be in power, because occasionally the House comes into conflict with the Government on this issue.
I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that it is desirable that the country should understand that democracy means government by discussion and by reasonable discussion; that when these Money Resolutions are drawn so tightly that effective points are shut out from the discussion we are in some danger of finding truth in the jibe, which is sometimes levelled at us, that in this country we have a dictatorship which comes up every five years or so, and that during the lifetime of a Parliament the Government are so effectively masters of the House of Commons that government by discussion virtually disappears.
In the three instances which I have brought forward, all of which have occurred since Christmas, that jibe could


find some very strong support. The Government should draft their Money Resolutions not only so that the things which they want to do can be done, but also so that those things which the Opposition wish to be done can at least be discussed. This was the point of the discussion which occurred during the lifetime of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman recollects that discussion very well, as I do. It was then the desire that the Opposition should be able to table Amendments, which the Government were not obliged to accept but which would give the Opposition the opportunity of having them discussed, so that when the matter came before the House a reasonable width of discussion upon questions within the general scope of the Bill could take place.
We appear to have reached another one of those stages when the draftsmen have achieved something which I regard as not a very desirable object—the habit of so drafting their Resolutions that all effective discussion is prevented except upon the exact terms of the Bill, as tabled. That cannot be for the healthy working of Parliament. It was as long ago as 1937 that the last Committee reported upon this matter, but I do not think that we want another Select Committee because I doubt whether the circumstances now are very different from what they were then.
1 believe, however, that the pendulum in the draftsmen's office—and, after all, the draftsmen act upon instructions—has swung towards a tightness in the drafting of these Resolutions which is making Committee work in the House less effective than it ought to be, and is certainly depriving the Opposition of their powers of initiative in the discussion of matters within the scope of the Bill which is before the House. I am not asking that discussion should go beyond matters which come within the scope of the Bill, but in present circumstances we are able to consider virtually only those points which the Government think should be discussed, and are prevented from raising the cognate matters which, generally speaking, should be considered when Measures of the scope of the present one are before the House.
The argument is proved up to the hilt when, upon three Bills coming before the House between the Christmas and Whit-sun Recesses, we have had to have sub-

stantial new Money Resolutions to deal not with points which the Opposition wanted to raise but which the Government themselves wanted to be covered by their own Bills. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House—and in that way responsible for the general discussion which takes place in the House, and not merely the convenience and comfort of the Government and Ministers promoting Bills—to see to it that such instructions shall be given to the draftsmen as will ensure compliance not merely with the letter but with the spirit of the circular sent round after the discussions in 1937.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: It is with some diffidence that I rise to take part in this discussion because, as a new Member of the House I am, of course, not as competent as right hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak about these matters. But I am struck very forcibly by the way in which a Money Resolution can inhibit a Committee in improving legislation. It was most striking in relation to the Housing Subsidies Bill, when it was clear that all sorts of distorting procedures had to be adopted in order to discuss matters at all.
It seemed to me that there were a number of matters which arose on that Bill which merited discussion and would have been better discussed in the proper manner. There were a series of Amendments to Clause I which were put down by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and which enabled a general debate to take place; and another series of Amendments, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, where, because one might not delete the word "satisfactory" one had to provide Amendments to say that for the purpose of the Act the word "satisfactory" shall not mean "satisfactory temporary houses"—or satisfactory something or other.
The same thought struck me when I read the draft Money Resolution before we debated the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Bill. Apart from the point which arises on the Fourth Schedule of the 1936 Act, there were a number of other Amendments and matters which seemed, on the Second Reading of the Bill, it would be appropriate to discuss in Committee. Because I do not wish


to detain the Committee perhaps I might read what I said on Second Reading.
These are minor points which ought to be adjusted in Committee, but as I understand the position as it is at present the Money Resolution may be drawn too tightly for these matters to be in order when we come to the Committee stage. It seems to me that there has been more, shoddy, ill-considered uncomprehensible piecemeal and tinkering legislation since the war than anyone would have believed possible 10 years ago. As a matter of principle it seems to me that it would be a great misfortune if reasonable and moderate Amendments could not be introduced, or discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill in order to ensure that the measure which emerges is as fair and just and equitable as Parliament can devise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2246.]
By that principle I would wish, as a Member of this House, to be able to stand. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to give due weight to the representations made on this matter tonight and on other occasions.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I ask the Lord Privy Seal to look at this situation again. A number of hon. Members were invited to submit Amendments to the Bill which had been thought by local government organisations to be within the broad scope of the Measure. People experienced in these matters were also of that opinion, but we discovered that they were outside the terms of the Money Resolution. It is not treating Parliament properly, nor can we function in our proper democratic manner, if in matters of this kind Money Resolutions—which after eleven years experience in this House I appreciate that we must have—are so drawn so as to prevent the raising of pertinent matters. It sometimes happens that such matters involve little expense, but if that situation exists, there must be something wrong with the drafting of the Money Resolution.
It would appear that we have a sort of "Big Brother" somewhere in the draftsman's office to make sure that as little as possible is discussed. I said the same thing between 1945 and 1951 and so I have a clear conscience about this matter. I think that all Governments tend to take advantage of the procedure, but there is no reason why the House should accept that. When, as recent experience has shown, it results in matters which ought to be discussed not being discussed; when—and what is worse—it results in things the Government desire to introduce

not being introduced, and a second Money Resolution is needed, the situation is one which should be considered seriously. I hope therefore that the Lord Privy Seal will feel able to say something about it.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was quite right in saying that all Oppositions throughout the ages draw attention to the increasing tightness of Money Resolutions, and that all Governments, during their period of office, are open to the criticism of having drawn Money Resolutions too tightly. The score of the present Government is only even with that of their predecessors—[Interruption.]—we have been in power for some years now—who not only in the years of infancy and inexperience committed this error, if error it be, of finding themselves necessitated to produce a second Money Resolution. It was not only on the New Towns Act, 1946, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, at quite an advanced period in their tenure of office, that in order to facilitate Government Amendments they found themselves under the necessity of tabling additional Money Resolutions.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that they at any rate reformed. There was no second Money Resolution in the two years 1950 and 1951. There has been a spate recently.

Mr. Powell: But those were years in which the previous Government were inhibited altogether from legislation of any substance.
It would indeed be a serious matter if discussion were really inhibited in Committee by the terms of a Money Resolution. I do not feel, however, that in this case it can be argued that under any of the three heads covered by the Money Resolution which I moved tonight that has occurred. The question of extending the increased rate of compensation to cases where the owner-occupier was not in occupation on 13th December was discussed during the Second Reading debate, and was ventilated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the Committee stage. It could—at any rate, so far as compulsory purchase orders are concerned—have been


covered, if so desired, by an Amendment in Committee within the terms of order, though it would have been necessary, as I have earlier explained, to have this additional Money Resolution in order to make the marginal adjustment in the case of the alternative procedures.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that the question of demolition by agreement has not been raised during the earlier stages, and of course I accept entirely his assurance that the reason was that the Opposition felt themselves inhibited by the Money Resolution. But, curiously enough, they were not so inhibited by the Money Resolution in regard to the subject matter of paragraph C of the Resolution which is before us tonight, and which, as the hon. and learned Member said, was not only ventilated on Second Reading by one of my hon. Friends but was also raised more than once during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). Therefore, it cannot seriously be contended that on any of the matters covered by the Money Resolution the discussion—discussion which in two cases has led to the Money Resolution before the Committee tonight—has been seriously restricted.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has recognised the necessity for the terms of this Money Resolution in order to achieve purposes which I think I am not guilty of anticipation in suggesting will be agreeable to both sides of the Committee. On that ground I would certainly not complain that he and other hon. and right hon. Members have tonight performed the ceremonial duty of an Opposition in regard to a Money Resolution.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): An appeal was made to me by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and I have listened to the very striking and at times vehement speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), whom I learned to admire during our Finance Bill

debates. I have also listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon).
The merits of the case have been put by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is important that I should be here, as, indeed, I try to be on most important occasions, because this is an occasion to which the House of Commons attaches great importance. I was aware of the discussions in 1934, I am aware of the Report of the Committee in 1937, and I am aware of the references to 1946, which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. It is always difficult for a Government to draw up Money Resolutions to suit themselves, the House of Commons and the cause of liberty, and there is no sinister move, as far as I am aware, in the offices of Parliamentary counsel, or anywhere else, which is designed to restrict Money Resolutions at the present time.
The case to which the right hon. Member for South Shields referred—that of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill—was one in which I did attempt to intervene to try to improve the situation. I did not improve it as much as the right hon. Gentleman wanted, but I improved it a little bit. All I can say tonight, without trespassing on the ground of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary, who have discussed the merits of the case, is that the Government are aware of the difficulty. I have carefully listened to those hon. Members who are particularly associated with local government, and I will do my best to have the whole of this question looked at in the light of the instances to which reference has been made. I can give no further undertaking than that, but I regard this as among the many pressing matters which fall on my plate in assuming the very honourable and dignified duties which are now my lot.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT CHARGES

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Additional Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, 1956 (S.I., 1956. No. 548), dated 11th April, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th April, be annulled.
If it is agreeable, we might take this Motion and the two following ones relating to transport charges together.
We wish to debate tonight, in the short time that remains to us, the contents of these Regulations which have been made and laid by the Ministry of Transport. We wish to do so because we consider that they are the result of unwarranted interference by him in the affairs of the British Transport Commission. These three sets of Regulations, which limit the increase in freight charges on British Railways to 5 per cent., and, in certain exceptional cases, allow some higher charges, and which increase the charges on canals by 5 per cent. and in the case of the docks by 7½ per cent., prevent the Commission from fulfilling its statutory obligations. We therefore consider that the Minister is doing harm to the Transport Commission and to the country's transport system generally.
It is quite true that the Minister can intervene in the affairs of the Transport Commission when it is considered to be in the national interest, but it is doubtful whether, in this case, the laying of these Regulations, which result from his intervention, is in the national interest. It is true that they bring some temporary relief to the transport users by comparison with the charges which the Commission wished to impose, but it may well be that in the long run, as a result of the Minister's action, the charges which the Commission will ultimately have to impose will be higher than those they wished to impose earlier this year. In other words, in the long run the transport user will be in a worse position than he is now.
The Commission is at present in a very difficult financial position, and because of this it found it necessary to apply to the Minister to increase its charges. I

want to remind the House of the position which has led to the making of these Regulations. We are not tonight concerned with passenger fares; these Regulations do not involve passenger fares, which come under the 1953 Act and are the responsibility of the Transport Tribunal. Nevertheless, the Commission had applied to the Tribunal for an increase in passenger fares and that application was before the Tribunal at the time the Commission applied to the Minister for an increase in freight charges.
The application in regard to freight charges had to be made to the Minister because, under the transitional provisions of the 1947 Act, he has the responsibility, but there is imposed upon him the obligation that when the Commission applies to him for an increase in charges he must act in accordance with Section 82 of the 1947 Act, which reads:
… before making any regulations … the Minister shall consult with, and consider the advice of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal.
What happened? An application was made to the Minister on 21st February this year for a 10 per cent. increase in freight charges, for a 7½ per cent. increase in respect of docks and canals, and for certain higher charges. On 19th March, before consulting the Tribunal and before acting in accordance with the Section which I have quoted, the Minister came to the House and announced his decision to disallow an increase of 10 per cent. and 7½ per cent. respectively and to make these Regulations for an increase of only 5 per cent.
He said:
… I consider that it is expedient that regulations should be made to make increases in general not exceeding 5 per cent. and I am accordingly consulting the Transport Tribunal." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 830.]
He had made up his mind that the increase was to be only the amount in the Regulations—5 per cent.—but, having made up his mind, he said, "I must act in accordance with the Act of Parliament and I will, therefore, refer the matter to the Tribunal." He prejudged the position by passing to the Tribunal his recommendation that the increase should be limited to 5 per cent. In asking for their advice, he was, in effect, telling them that he would ignore what advice they gave him.
The Minister's action in this case was most extraordinary and irresponsible. He overruled the Commission's application in respect of passenger fares—although we are not concerned with that tonight—and, at the same time, informed the Tribunal of his decision about freight charges before he had given them the opportunity of deliberating upon the applications which had been made. Of course, the Tribunal is an expert body which during the last six months has had three occasions to examine the finances of the Commission. It had to do so in December last year and in February this year, when applications for increased passenger fares were made.
At the same time, it was considering the railway freights charges scheme over a period during which it had 44 days of hearings; and a decision on that has not yet been reached. But the Tribunal had been examining the finances of the Commission and was well aware of how they stood. The Minister ignored that fact and told the Tribunal that he was limiting the increase to 5 per cent.
The Minister's next move was even more extraordinary than this. In accordance with his request—and in accordance with the terms of the Act—the Tribunal advised the Minister, on 3rd April, that what he was doing in proposing to make these Regulations was contrary to the Commission's financial interests, that it would prevent it from fulfilling its statutory obligations and that the Commission should be permitted to put up its charges to the full extent that it had applied for, which was, of course, 10 per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. he had decided upon.
In the memorandum of advice which it presented to the Minister, the Tribunal stated:
We regret that we are unable to agree with the provisional decisions which you have reached…
That is, to make these Regulations limiting these amounts to 5 per cent.
We think that in the light of the past history and present prospects of the Commission it is plainly necessary that they should be enabled to take all such measures as are available to stay the progressive deterioration of their financial position, and that the increases for which they have sought your sanction "—
that is, the 10 per cent.

are urgently necessary if this object is to be attained. We recommend accordingly that regulations be made authorising the increases proposed by the Commission.
The Transport Tribunal, in face of the Minister's recommendation and decision that the increases should be only 5 per cent., and knowing his views, came down categorically on the side of the Commission and said that it should be permitted to increase the charges to the full extent that it had requested.
In spite of that, in face of this definite advice of the Tribunal, what did the Minister do? One would have thought that he would realise his mistake and bow to the greater knowledge of the Tribunal; that he would accept its recommendation and scrap the Regulations as we are now suggesting. But no. On 11th April, a week after he had received its advice, the Minister, in reply to a Parliamentary Question which I put to him, told the House that he proposed to make these Regulations limiting the increase to half of what the Commission had asked for and to half of what the Tribunal had considered "urgently necessary". And he postponed the full increase for a period of at least six months.
The Minister, therefore, brushed aside the advice which the Tribunal had given him. He ignored its expert opinion. Apparently, he had expected and hoped that the Tribunal would act as a rubber stamp. He must have overlooked the fact that that Tribunal is a statutory body which has vast experience, with far more experience in the Commission's affairs than he has, and that it gave this objective considered and wise opinion.
On what grounds does the Minister justify the action which he took, and on what grounds does he still justify it? Actually, in the statement that he made to the House there are only vague hopes as to the position of the Transport Commission changing; only vague hopes to justify his not allowing the Commission to meet its statutory obligations to pay its way over this next period.
The right hon. Gentleman told the House that relations were better within the industry. They may well be, and for that we are all grateful, although I do not think that the Government can take the credit for that. He says that there is a new initiative within the industry and that economies and efficiency can


now get the Commission on to an economic basis. He says that over the next six months there must be a review of the finances of the Commission.
The Minister seems to me to have a mistaken idea. He seems to think that until he came along as the "new boy," as he likes to call himself—he has done that on many occasions—with his great inexperience, the Commission had done nothing; that it had been standing idly by waiting for him to appear and tell them how to run its affairs. I say that because, on 19th March, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Is the House really satisfied that we can go on with this sterile business of putting up charges year after year

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary agrees. Let him wait.—
—"and making no effort at all to absorb some of the increased costs?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 832.]
The Parliamentary Secretary agrees. Does he realise that in the past the Commission has succeeded in absorbing a very considerable part of the increased cost? I will give him some figures to prove it to him. Freight charges, including this latest increase of 5 per cent., have gone up by 185 per cent., compared with pre-war. Wholesale prices have gone up by 244 per cent. Therefore, freight charges have gone up considerably less than have wholesale prices.

Mr. Profumo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I have obtained these figures with some care. They can be obtained from published statistics which are available.
If one likes to refer to other figures, coal prices alone have gone up far more, and iron and steel prices have also gone up more than freight rates. As for sleepers, goodness knows how much they have gone up. Passenger fares have doubled. They have gone up 100 per cent. compared with pre-war. Retail prices have gone up 146 per cent. on an average. That means that what is purchased today costs almost 50 per cent. more compared with the cost of passenger transport. All the statistics of the Transport Commission show the

greater efficiency of the Commission, of the operations of its system, and particularly the railways, since 1948.
If the Minister thinks that only now has the time arrived when the Commission is going to absorb some of these increased costs, he is very much mistaken. It is not due to him that this is taking place. It has been a continuing process over a very long period, and, certainly, the Commission will have to continue to absorb costs to the greatest extent possible. But it is quite impossible for the Commission to absorb all the increase in costs.
I will give a few figures taken from statements by the Minister and from findings of the Transport Tribunal to indicate the very serious position of the Commission and why these Regulations do not go far enough. As the House knows, the deficit at the end of 1956, when taking into account the increased charges under these Regulations will be £124 million. The 5 per cent. increases which these Regulations permit in a full year would bring in £20 million, but as they will operate for only eight months this year they will bring in only £13½ million, so that at the end of this year the Transport Commission will have an accumulated deficit of £110½ million.
Had the Commission's original application been accepted, and the full £37 million per annum been received—or rather, received for the nine months that remain in this year, which would have meant £28 million—the deficit at the end of the year wo0075ld have been £96 million, which is high enough, but it would have been £14½ million less than what it will be, thanks to the Minister's intervention.
However much the Commission improves its conditions during the rest of this year, does the Minister seriously believe that by delaying an increase in charges for this period of six months and laying these Regulations, limiting the increase to 5 per cent., he will in any way meet the deficit which will be running at the rate of £35 million a year on the basis of the present increases? On the increase of 5 per cent., under these Regulations, the Commission will still be running in a full year with a deficit of £35 million a year. If the Commission had been granted its full application, the deficit would be running at the lower rate of £18 million per annum.
Does the Minister really believe that increased economies and greater efficiency and this new spirit which we welcome in the industry can possibly make up that deficit and enable the Commission to pay its way? He·knows that that is quite impossible, and, knowing that it is impossible, he had no right to prevent the Commission from endeavouring to meet its statutory obligations in the way which it wished to do.
When the Minister decided to make these Regulations what did he have in mind as to the Government's policy in the future? What does the Minister intend to do about the present position? He is acting most unfairly to the Commission because, on the one hand, he is preventing it from operating commercially, preventing it from fulfilling its statutory obligations, and, on the other, he gives it no assistance whatsoever. He leaves it with this annual deficit, running at £35 million, and does not say how it is to get out of its difficult financial position. He has nothing positive or constructive to offer. It is up to the Minister to tell us what he intends to do about the Commission.
Personally, I think that the Minister is heading for a subsidy, because I do not think that the action that he has followed so far indicates that he will put the Commission on a footing which will enable it to pay its way. That is partly due, of course, to the transport policy which the Government have pursued, and which, if I attempted to discuss it tonight, would be quite out of order; but I would mention. in passing, that the taking away of certain of the profitable sections of the Transport Commission has made the laying of these Regulations necessary and does justify them.
In conclusion may I say, that in introducing these Regulations, providing for only half of the amount asked for by the Commission and only half of what the Tribunal, with its expert knowledge, considered urgently necessary, the Minister has made it far more difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to meet its statutory obligations in the foreseeable future.
He is piling up trouble not only for the Commission but for himself, because I think that he will have to come to the House six months' hence and ask for increases far higher than those which the

Commission sought originally and which he has rejected. Ultimately, he may well have to seek a subsidy for the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention, leading to these Regulations, which have limited to such an extent the amount which the Commission can raise, and his failing to accompany them by any positive policy whatsoever, indicates that he has acted without due consideration, rashly and contrary to the national interest.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I beg to second the Motion.
The charge which we make against the Minister of Transport tonight is that he has tried to get the best of both worlds. On 19th March, he said
In these circumstances the Government came to the conclusion that they would be justified in the national interest in asking the Commission to take a course which would involve an exception to the general policy in regard to the nationalised industries' charges which I have already mentioned.
Section 4 (1) of the 1947 Act states
The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions …
If the national interest demanded that the Minister should disregard the request of the Commission, why did not he have the courage to take the responsibility on his own shoulders by issuing a direction? After all, we know about those convivial afternoons after lunch when the Minister tries to shake off his responsibility and place it on the Commission, even though under the Act he has the power to take the responsibility on himself. He does that deliberately in order to avoid making it look like a political move.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I should be interested if the hon. Gentleman would tell me a little more about convivial afternoons after lunch.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he follows the practice begun by his predecessors. After all, I served in a very humble capacity for four and a half years with his predecessors, but perhaps I had better leave the matter where it is.
All I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he desires to discuss


the matter with the Commission and if, in the national interest, it was policy that he should not permit the Commission to carry out its request to him on 21st February, the courageous thing for him to have done was to have issued a direction to the Commission so that the responsibility would fall fairly and squarely on his shoulders and not be shared by the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in order to be commercially sound, as it wished to be, the Commission had to make an application to him and that he, in turn, had to submit the matter to the Transport Tribunal acting as an advisory committee. Even that procedure was not carried out as the 1947 Act intended. Section 82 (1) of the 1947 Act, dealing with transitional provisions, states:
Provided that before making any regulations under this subsection, the Minister shall consult with, and consider the advice of, the permanent Members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a consultative committee.
How could the right hon. Gentleman consider the advice of and consult with the Transport Tribunal when on 19th March he told this House what he proposed to do even before the Tribunal had had an opportunity of looking at the matter at all? Even in his statement to the House on 19th March, if he will forgive me for saying so, the right hon. Gentleman was not as forthcoming as one would have expected from a Minister of the Crown, because he attempted to gloss over the fact that the purpose of the Commission was to increase the charges on the whole of its services—the railways and all its ancillary undertakings.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
 With regard to railway freight, dock and canal charges in respect of which the Commission has made an application to me under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, I consider that it is expedient that regulations should be made to make increases in general not exceeding 5 per cent. and I am accordingly consulting the Transport Tribunal.
As regards those increases in passenger fares for which the Commission has an existing authority from the Tribunal, the Commission will be making its own announcement. These changes will increase the Commission's revenue by some £20 million in a full year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 829–30.]
The Commission had previously asked for higher increases which would have given it £37 million.
I suggest that to any impartial observer those two paragraphs meant that the right hon. Gentleman was merely talking about the railway services of the Commission, but we now know that the £20 million estimate, which he considered the 5 per cent. increase would give, not only included increases in railway charges but also increases in London Passenger Transport charges and in the charges of Scottish and provincial bus services, and indeed of British Road Services, but the right hon. Gentleman said not one word about that in his statement to the House.
We now know, from sources which are available to me, that the £20 million and the £37 million both included not only railway charges but charges on all the ancillary services of the Commission. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence and tell us on 19th March that the £20 million included all those services? Perhaps he will tell us tonight why he overlooked the matter.
He will remember, no doubt, that on 19th March, in a supplementary question, I asked him something about the deficit which the Commission has to carry. He will also no doubt remember that in another capacity he took part in a debate in the House on 3rd February, 1955. The right hon. Gentleman was followed in that debate by the present Leader of the House, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman, the present Lord Privy Seal, said on that occasion:
I will now address myself to the particular remedies, the adjustment of fares and charges and modernisation. The adjustment of charges, to which reference has been made in the Press, has two aspects, sufficiency in size and flexibility. It is reasonable enough, if the Commission is to pay its way that it must be able, subject to proper safeguards, to raise charges to meet increases in its costs and thus reduce its deficit…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1303.]
The present Minister of Transport sat alongside the Lord Privy Seal when that speech was made, and there is nothing in HANSARD to show that he sought to intervene in any way.
Five days later there was another debate on transport in the House. In winding up for the Opposition, I sought to raise the problem of the Commission's then deficit. This is what I said:
According to the Transport Commission's 1953 Report there was a deficit in the accounts


of £27·3 million at the end of 1953. It estimated that its deficit in 1954 would be a further £15 million. In paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Court of Enquiry Report the Commission's 1955 deficit is estimated at £25 million. It has been assessed that additional wage claims which have been made since the beginning of the year will amount to a further £10 million. According to my calculation, therefore, by the end of 1955 the Commission will be £77 million in the red.
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House tonight how far I was out in my estimate of February, 1955? Certainly I was much nearer than his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, because the hon. Gentleman said this:
 However, we take the view that the estimates which have been put forward by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite"—
that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and myself—
 are more than they need be and more than we think they will be. We are relying upon an improvement in the position as a result, first, of the modernisation scheme coming rapidly into operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1838 and 1846.]
I had argued in that debate that the modernisation scheme would not show any substantial savings and results for at least five years. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that tonight? Will he admit that it is not now likely that any substantial savings from modernisation are likely to be realised before 1960? Will he tell the House what the Government propose to do about the £124 million deficit which will accrue in the accounts of the Commission by the end of this year?
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot deny the right to the Commission to put its charges up on a commercial basis and leave it to carry this £124 million, and as much more as will accrue in deficit in each succeeding year from this year. Or will he take the advice offered by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Fuel and Power, who, on 3rd February, 1955, was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones)? He, speaking in the debate to which I have referred previously, had this to say:
 That being so, we must not think in terms of political interference in the affairs of the Transport Commission. It is laid upon the Commission to pay its way, and in so far as there is political intervention that onus upon

the Commission is weakened and the Commission has an alibi or a pretext elsewhere for its inability to pay its way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1955; Vol. 536. c. 1354.]
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is precisely what he has done. He has refused to allow the Commission to meet its obligations in a commercial fashion, and he has refused to allow the Commission to raise its charges.
Here again may I make the point to the right hon. Gentleman that he has not even been fair to the Transport Tribunal. For instance, it makes the point plainly in paragraph 2 that the Commission is not likely to be able to make both ends meet, and that in fact the charges which it sought to apply were reasonable in all the circumstances.
We should like to know, too, what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do about the deficit. Does he really believe that he can get out of the people employed in the Commission's services the best possible service if they have to carry this deficit from year to year, if they are precluded from raising their charges, if he ignores the advice of the Transport Tribunal, acting as an advisory committee, if he submits the matter as a matter of course to the Tribunal after he has made up his own mind, when he could act under power given in the 1947 Act, by which he could take the responsibility fairly and squarely on his own shoulders?
According to The Times of 16th May, the right hon. Gentleman was described in another place as the "Napoleon of the air". I suggest to him that if he carries on in this way he will be known as the pasteboard Cesar of the railways as well.

10.32 p.m.

Mr Geoffrey Wilson: I should not venture to delay the House by intervening in this debate at this late hour were it not for the astonishment I feel at the attitude taken by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). We have heard much from them about the Minister; we have heard much about the Commission; we have heard much about a deficit. We have not heard one word from them about the people who seem to me to be the people most concerned with transport—the users. It does not seem to have occurred to either of the hon. Gentlemen


that these Regulations could have anything whatever to do with the people who use these facilities.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If the hon. Member had listened to some remarks which I made fairly early in my speech he would have known that 1 said that in my view the transport users will be worse off because of the Regulations, because they will result in higher charges than there would have been had the charges asked for been accorded. It is the transport user who will suffer.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member did say that, I did not gather that from his remarks. The greater part of his speech and of the speech of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools dealt with the Minister and the Commission.
I think that the general public welcome these Regulations as an indication that here at last we have a Minister who is able to bring to the attention of a nationalised industry that there may be other ways of meeting a deficit than immediately putting up the charges.

Mr. D. Jones: If the Minister was so concerned with the interests of the users, why did he not implement the provisions of the 1947 Act and take the responsibility fairly and squarely on his own shoulders?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot tell what my right hon. Friend's motives were. I am saying merely that the public welcome these Regulations as some indication that there may be other ways in which such deficits can be met.
The provisions which we made in the 1953 Act for greater flexibility in charges have not yet come into force. We hope that they will have an effect in increasing the revenues and the earning capacity of the railways. In the meanwhile, there are people in the House and outside who are not wholly satisfied that everything has been done that could be done to achieve economies and to run the transport undertakings on commercial lines.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools referred more than once to the commercial management of transport, but that, apparently, to him means merely raising charges. Other commercial undertakings have to consider other matters as well, because a deficit may

arise not only because of unavoidable costs but because the public do not want the services they provide. That might apply to railways or anything else.
So, when one finds a falling off in revenue, it is common sense to do every thing one can to meet the needs of the moment, which may not have been the needs of yesterday. Transport, like any other undertaking, has to be under constant review to try to improve its services and meet the changing needs of the public.
My hon. Friends and I, who welcome the Regulations, think that this is at any rate an indication that something could be done in those directions. Perhaps increasing charges is not the only method of dealing with the problem.

10.36 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am grateful to the Opposition for putting down these Prayers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would, 1 am sure, agree that they are put down more to elicit from me in greater detail than one is able to give at Question Time the reasons for my action than to try to deprive the British Transport Commission of some revenue. I realise that the House is entitled, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said, to a full explanation from the Government as to why they took this action.
First, may I say that I do not regard this as a political issue. It is far too important, as I shall show, for it to be that. This is the point which I must get on the record. If there is to be an argument about the delays which have been imposed on the Commission—which have undoubtedly lost it revenue—I must tell the House, having turned up the various decision which have been taken since the railways were nationalised, that the largest estimated loss of receipts to the railways through delaying the demand to increase charges occurred in the life of, not the Conservative Government, but the Socialist Government. The date of the decision was 1949.
I merely say that to show, quite fairly, that if one is to say that there is an element in the deficit—of course there is—which arises from delayed applications through Government action, then the Socialist Party is at least as guilty,



or, as I think, rather more guilty than the present Government. Let us get it on the record and make it quite plain that, if one is going to look at the deficit in that way, the Socialist Party and the Conservative Party equally bear some responsibility.
There are, however, much more important things than that. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools mentioned my relationship as Minister with the nationalised industries for which I am responsible. I want to make my position quite plain. These industries, as we would all agree, are a major factor in the increasing drive for efficiency and prosperity in which we all know this country has to succeed to survive. If they are to play their full part, they must—I do not think that there would be any disagreement in the House about this— reflect the highest standards of team work, efficiency and productivity in the national interests.
That is part of what I conceive that I have to try to achieve through the proper exercise of my statutory duty. It may be said that it is rather a tough assignment. None the less, I must try to discharge that responsibility and I would say that this position is fully understood by the Chairman of the Transport Commission. I do not have the benefit, I regret, of convivial afternoons after lunch with the Chairman— it may be that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) had that benefit when he had responsibility for such matters.
I conduct my affairs with the Chairman on the basis of the greatest co-operation and the greatest willingness to work together in what is, in my view, not a political task but a very urgent and practical task, to try to make our railway service play its full part in the economy and not in any way to put a drag upon it. I have had the utmost co-operation from the Commission, the regional boards, and the Chairman himself in this task.
I repeat that I think it follows quite logically from the Government's view that those industries which are not denationalised should, none the less, be made as efficient as possible. It is only by taking them out of acute party political controversy that they can be made

efficient. These industries must be treated as public utilities and the Ministers responsible for them must try to improve and increase their efficiency and service to the public in every possible way. I see nothing wrong in doing that, or in trying to run an industry of this kind on sensible and practical lines. Neither do I see anything wrong with using the general principles that are applied to enlightened public industry. It is, indeed, as a public utility that we must judge the Transport Commission.
I think it is due to the House that I should briefly give a little of the back history before I come to the actual decisions taken by the Government and say what we intend to do. Although I have been charged with responsibility for the Commission for only five months, I saw a great deal of it during the four years when I was at the Ministry of Labour and National Service. I was led to the view that one of the basic things wrong with the Commission—I do not say this in any spirit of apportioning responsibility —was that its human relations were not right or conducive to efficiency.
As I think hon. Gentlemen know, two-thirds of the Commission's total costs is represented by salaries and wages. They also know, I think, that we cannot hope to get the right answer out of our great modernisation plan unless it is backed by the people who have the old spirit of railway service duty, and a desire to give efficiency to the travelling public and to industry. All these things, in my view, were not as good as they should be, and I saw a good deal of them when I was at the Ministry of Labour and National Service during those four years.
When I came to this office, it seemed to me that the unlucky Christmas rail crashes and the beginning of yet another difficult argument on pay did not provide the kind of atmosphere in which one could look for the implementation of the modernisation plan by the people who had to do it. Yet I was quite sure that the old underlying loyalties were there. Perhaps I might mention that I showed my belief then by the telegram which I sent to the Deputy-Chairman of the Commission about the very fine work the railway men did in the fog of early January of this year, when the railways were the only public service that kept moving. Later, the Chairman of the Commission


marked his belief in the men in a rather more practical manner by awarding a pay increase in a just and swift settlement which, I think, surprised many railway men. He showed that he believed something had to be done to sweep away the bitterness and frustration of the past and to try to get back to the old spirit of the railways.
I mention that because it is the beginning of the story about the deficit. The pay claim was a claim which I support—and I did so publicly at the time—as being right, just and fair. But none the less, it cost £20 million—

Mr. Percy Collick: Surely not the beginning.

Mr. Watkinson: I am coming to that in a moment.
I said that that increase of £20 million to the deficit, which arose quite properly from the pay claim, was the beginning of the position which led to the application to increase the charges, which is the subject of the debate tonight —

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there was frustration on the part of the workers on the railway before nationalisation, or that the frustration came with nationalisation?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to bring in an argument about nationalisation, because I have no intention at all of dealing with it; there are far more important matters to be dealt with. All I am saying is that the situation at the beginning of this year was not a very happy one and I believe that no railway man will deny that there is a new feeling as a result of the just and fair pay claim which I have been discussing.
But here I come to the price for this, which is £20 million. These were the decisions taken before the Commission came forward to me in February with proposals to increase freight and passenger charges so as to produce some £37 million in a full year. These decisions were essential to get the human relations right and to try to back up the modernisation plan with the most efficient use of the new equipment.
Why were they essential? This is a point to which insufficient attention has been paid and which has not been mentioned at all in this debate. What has not been noticed is that the Commission's proposals asked for £37 million more in increased charges, all of which would have to be borne by industry and the travelling public. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools has talked about commercial charging and I am quite sure the Commission came forward with the highest charges it thought it could commercially get; if it did not it was neglecting its duty, and I do not think it was. Those charges left it £18 million short of what was necessary to discharge its obligations under the 1947 Act.
Therefore, we have a position where, whatever the Commission apparently could do, in February of this year we were £18 million short of what was necessary to fulfil the Commission's duty under the Act and, on the railways alone, no less than £24 million short of what they should do to fulfil their obligations. When we are faced with facts of that sort it is not much good doing what both hon. Members have asked the House to do, just to try to blunder on by raising charges and hoping for the best.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: That is an insult to the Commission.

Mr. Watkinson: I have carefully explained that the Commission, although doubtless raising the charges to the maximum commercial extent, found that there was a gap of no less than £24 million which it could not recover. Therefore, action such as the Government decided to take at that time, which I will in due course describe to the House, was inevitable.
I say frankly to the House—and the House must take account of it because it will hear more of itx2014;that if something cannot be done in the next year or so to gain improvements in operating efficiency, the Commission may well find itself crushed between the upper and lower millstones of an increased deficit and an inability to recoup the deficit by increased charges, because the economic limit of increasing charges has been reached. This is the situation which faces me as Minister.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman. He says that there was this very big deficit of £18 million, which we do not deny. The action he took was to increase that deficit to £35 million. That is what we cannot understand. Why did he take that action?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the kindness, if he can bear it, to listen to me to the end. I think that I shall be able to satisfy him. The Commission runs the risk of being literally crushed under an increasing deficit which it cannot recoup because it has reached the economic limit of the charges it can impose on the public and on industry. The Commission could have applied the full level of the freight charges it wanted to only over a very small field. Indeed, if it comes forward and increases them in September, as I have informed the House that it may have to do, the increased charges will have to be applied over a smaller and smaller field of traffic unless more business is not to be lost to the railways.
This fact alone made it essential, in the Government's view, to take stock of the position. As the hon. Member correctly said, it is the Government's view that we must try to make a concerted and definite attempt to see that this industry does all it possibly can to absorb its increased costs instead of passing them on to the public and to industry—because, when passed on to industry, these increases are a direct addition to the cost of everything which industry makes.
It was decided to put a brake on the charges to the extent of allowing roughly half of the increase in freight charges requested. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools asked why I did not give the Commission a directive. Because it was not necessary. As the Tribunal clearly recognised, I have the responsibility for taking this action, and I took it on my shoulders, as it was proper for me to do.
Another matter which has not been mentioned tonight—and I understand that it was not entirely relevant to the Regulations, since they deal with freight, docks and canal charges—is the fact that the Commission at this time, with no pressure from me and no request from me, of their own volition did not go forward with passenger fare increases of nearly £5 million

which they could have carried out without any authority from me at all. The Commission took that decision because it wanted to play its part and because it accepted that this was a time of great decision for the railways, when the whole matter had to be looked at in the urgent light which we can get only when everybody is put under some pressure to take action speedily.
I accept this policy of deferment. Although it will have lost the Commission about £8 million in revenue in the six months, it has to be considered against the necessity of bringing home to everyone in this great industry the present position of the industry in order that a more efficient and profitable future can be secured for it.
We have had nine years' experience of the Commission, and I think that it now has the right kind of organisation. A measure of justice is being done in sorting out its ancillary services so that there is the right mixture of public and private ownership—and that answers the suggestion that we are interfering with the Commission. If we are doing so, we are interfering to give it about 7,500 lorries more, which will continue to bring revenue to the Commission.
We must consider this matter against the background of an increasing deficit—and I doubt whether that deficit can be overcome by increasing charges, unless there are some countervailing economies. Against this background, we must remember that the Transport Commission is asking the Government and the country to provide it with £1,200 million of scarce resources in steel, wagons, electrical gear and other equipment. Many of those resources could be exported. Much of the equipment could be used elsewhere at home, for example, for building roads. It might be politically more convenient for me to build roads than to press on with this task on the railways.
It must be faced that we have this demand on the national economy from an industry which, at the moment, does not appear to be able to make ends meet. I am quite certain that it is in the best interests of the railways to face the position now. Unless they can show —as I believe they can, and I will give some facts in a moment—that, from clearly ascertainable facts, the expendi-


ture of this great sum and the use of all these scarce resources is justified, in just the same way as the railwaymen are already showing that the new deal they are getting is justified by their greater skill and efficiency—and I pay that tribute to them—it will be increasingly difficult for the Government, and for me as the responsible Minister, to justify this great and continuing expenditure of resources on modernising the railways. We all know that unless it is done the railways cannot march forward into the future as a modern system at all.
That is the general background which forms the full justification for this action, which was taken in order that there should be the six-month critical reexamination of the whole system of railways—of their efficiency, and of their operation. I will just indicate now some of the things which we are considering in this six-month period—only a few of the things; others will be disclosed at the appropriate time.
We are considering the advantages likely to be derived from the modernisation plan. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools was right in saying that at first it was thought that nothing much would result for about five years—

Mr. D. Jones: No, I claimed that, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that I was quite wrong and that the deficit would be wiped out in a short time.

Mr. Watkinson: I was just about to deal with that point.
The fact is that, in the end, the modernisation plan should add in global figures about £80 million a year to the Commission's revenue. We have also to examine these important decisions about electrification and vacuum brakes, and so on, and what sort of ascertainable effect they will have on the Commission over a period of years. We have to look at the regional organisation, which is now beginning to settle down and, I believe, showing very good results. The regional boards, comprising business men and trade unionists of all shades of opinion, are working well together in a practical fashion. We must see what sort of benefits will flow from that.

We have to pay more attention to the progressive improvement in morale, which is essential to the proficient use of the new tools and the new equipment which will come. Very little account has been taken of the immense advance —it is quite a revolution—in, for example, setting up a work study department in the railways, supported by both unions and management. It recently went to France to see what good ideas it could crib from the French railways and put into operation on ours.
Then there is the greater flexibility in charging—a most important thing. We are awaiting the decision of the Tribunal on that. It is expected reasonably shortly. The railways will be able to take account of the new flexibility which will be given them and, I am very glad to say, may be given greater freedom from interference by Ministers, which is, perhaps, a good thing, too. There is the elimination of uneconomic services, another thing that has to be faced, as I have told the House before, and it does not include only branch lines. The railways have now to regard themselves, in the second half of the twentieth century, as long-term carriers of both freight and passengers. They have to streamline their services.
Those are just some of the things on which the Commission and I are working very hard. When I say "I" I must add that I am not interfering in this task, but merely saying to the Commission, "This is how I believe you can best help me to show the country that you mean to put yourself into a more efficient and greatly improved state. This is how you can help me to justify the immense sums which you are rightly asking the country to devote to your modernisation plan "
In this way we are trying to prove that all the money and skill that is going into the job is worth while and not being thrown away; that it is better to spend it on the railways than on the roads or anywhere else. Does the House really think that that is a task which should not be undertaken? Does the House really think that it is not right for me, as Minister, to apply all the fair pressure I can on everyone in the railways to make them feel that they must get on with the task? I think that it would be


very difficult to argue against this. I believe that this is the essential task; neither denationalising nor renationalising the railways and the other activities of the Commission, but really making them serve the nation. This is what we must try to make them do.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools talked of the Tribunal's Report. I want to say how grateful I am to the Tribunal, because it has produced a most factual Report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied, on the position in which the railways find themselves. I think it is right that the Report should come from such an impartial body. The Tribunal has done a public service in reinforcing every word I have said about the financial difficulties in which the railways will find themselves unless they can speed up their reorganisation and modernisation.
The answer to why, quite rightly and properly, it had to say that it did not agree with me is shown clearly in paragraph 12 of its Report. It was, as the Tribunal said, its constitutional duty to do so. The Tribunal said:
 It is no part of our duty to discuss this possibility.
that is, the possibility that there were other reasons why this action should have been taken—
Even if we considered ourselves competent to do so. We are expressly prohibited by Section 85 of the 1947 Act from doing anything which would in our opinion prevent the Commission from discharging their general duty to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges'.

Mr. D. Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman read paragraph 11 as well?

Mr. Watkinson: I have read the whole Report several times. It is very familiar to me. What I am saying is that I am grateful to the Tribunal for impartially setting out the facts which I have indicated to the House. I do not disagree with the Tribunal in its advice to me, because it was advice which, as it said. it felt bound to give.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman disagreed.

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly we disagreed, but for entirely proper reasons. The Tribunal cannot take account of the

wider matters of policy which 1 have been discussing this evening, and it would not be proper for it to do so.
I am sorry to have spoken at some length, but this may be the only opportunity we shall have to discuss this question for some time, and I thought it right to set out some of the facts to the House. I have asked the railways for their cooperation in a task on which their whole future depends. The Government have also decided, as I have said, to put the brake on increasing their charges until we can see and make a final analysis of their true position.
The decision was certainly, in my view, forced upon us by the fact that the Commission had to admit that it could not increase its charges to a sufficient amount to balance, or counter-balance, its deficit. Equally, we faced the awkward fact that we are already very nearly at the point where the more charges that are put on, the more business is driven away. One cannot run a modernisation plan if there is a sort of buyers' strike at the same time. I want to do the reverse thing. As the railways begin to improve their service, as they will if we can get this matter right, they will rightly expect to have an opportunity of getting back a lot of these traffics which are now leaving them. They will rightly expect that the business community, instead of very often taking business away from the railways as a matter of policy, will try equally as a matter of policy to put it back on the railways. But, first, the railways must show that they mean to give the service which would justify that kind of action.
Those are, as fairly as I can explain them, some of the difficult matters to which the Commission, with my full support and, as far as I can give it, my cooperation, are now turning their minds and hands. It is a year of decision for them, and a time when the decisions they make will affect the whole future of the railways and every man and woman who works on them. If we can get the right decisions, the modernisation plan will have its full effect and the railways can look forward in a changed form to a greater efficiency and prosperity than they have ever known. If we get it wrong, as hon. Members rightly pointed out, we are merely faced with a deficit which cannot be overtaken, and, as the Government


firmly reject any element of subsidy, and I do so again tonight, we can see the impossible position in which the railways would be placed.
I have tried to outline as fairly as I can the position, that through nobody's fault, but through a combination of circumstances, I found the increasing of the deficit by a justifiable pay claim which is to pay a very big dividend and which was absolutely essential but, none the less, put another £20 million on the deficit; the fact that the modernisation plan, unless we can speed it up, is not going to come quickly enough if we do not look out; and the fact that the deficit cannot be overtaken by simple measures—certainly not by increasing charges. I believe that all these things can be overcome, and I say that because of the co-operation and good will which I have received not only from the Commission but from the union leaders whom I have met, and everybody else on the job.
I have tried to give the Opposition a fair explanation. There will, no doubt, be a further opportunity of examining the matter when the detailed proposals are brought before the House and when the Commission, as I have warned the House, may have to make a further increase in its charges against the new background which I have described. In those circumstances, I ask the Opposition to withdraw its Motion and to let the railways get on with their essential and vital task.
11.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I think that the full case for the annulment of these Regulations has been completely stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Therefore, there is very little that I want to say apart from what arises out of the Minister's statement. It seems to me that the Minister has made half the sort of statement that the House might reasonably have expected him to make in this connection. I think that the other half which he omitted to state to the House is by far the most important part.
The whole point of these Regulations is, of course, to increase certain charges. The vital point is that the Minister, by his own act, has chosen to prevent the Transport Commission making charges which, in its opinion and that of the Transport Tribunal, are completely justifiable. Yet,

despite all that, the Minister comes to the House, intervenes and prevents these seemingly perfectly proper charges being effected.
I should have thought that if the Minister have proved to the House that this was part of a well-considered Government policy the House might have understood it. I have very great difficulty in understanding Government policy. One day the Postmaster-General comes to the House when wages are increased and introduces a whole lot of increased charges for postal and telephone services and all the rest in order to recoup the Post Office for the extra wages paid, and hardly has he done that than the Minister of Transport presents to the House Regulations which are intended to prevent perfectly proper charges being introduced for railway freights.

Mr. G. Wilson: It was possible for the Post Office to collect those charges, because the public could pay them, but it might not be possible for the railways to collect their charges, because the public would not pay them.

Mr. Collick: That is quite hypothetical. The Transport Commission quite sincerely thinks that it could collect them. The Transport Tribunal also thinks it could collect them, and the hon. Gentlement thinks it cannot. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to say that the Commission cannot or would not collect them.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, nor do I really want to discuss the matter in this House, but I think he had better, no doubt through his contacts with the railways, brief himself as soon as possible on the present position as regards freight traffic, and then I do not think he will pursue that argument very far.

Mr. Collick: I understand to what the Minister is referring. If it is part of his case that if the full extent of the charges desired by the Transport Commission was imposed it would not succeed in fulfilling the object of the Transport Commission, that is an argument I can understand. But I certainly know that it was not in the mind of the Commission when it put forward these proposals, because otherwise it would obviously not have put them forward.
I find it very difficult to follow the policy of a Government which, on the one hand, acts in the way that the Postmaster-General acted and then, on the other, follows through the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviatian a completely opposite policy. In other words, the Government appear to say that what is good for the Post Office is not good for the railways, and that they are therefore following a precisely opposite line of policy in this case.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East made a few comparisons between the cost of private enterprise products and the cost of transport. He showed, and I think that anybody could show to reasonable satisfaction, that the prices of private enterprise products are far higher than the cost of passenger fares. They have risen very much more than passenger fares and freight charges have risen, but I know of no occasion when the Government have intervened to bring down the price of private enterprise products. We have had the classic case of potatoes at 6d. a 1b., which has been raised in the House. The Government have not chosen to interfere to bring down the price of potatoes, yet the Minister has followed this line in the matter of transport charges in a nationalised industry.
I as a Socialist have no objection to any Minister of the Crown doing anything to keep prices down. I wish to goodness that the Government had been far busier in that direction and had kept their promises to the people to keep prices down. If they had done so, the need for these Regulations would never have arisen. They have come about largely because of the Government's failure in that respect.
I do not therefore object to the Government acting in this manner even to keep the cost of railway freight down. I accept as perfectly good Socialist policy that the Government should do all they can to keep down the cost of transport or anything else, provided that it is part of a well-considered policy. I can understand the Government acting in this way if it is all part of a well-thought-out social policy. But the Minister has persuaded

the Commission to dodge about the country and cut out every uneconomic railway line, when every hon. Member who afterwards raises the matter on the Adjournment knows that the line should remain in being.
I have never thought it right that transport should be conducted in that way. If the Post Office followed the same practice and said that it was not going to carry a letter at 2½ from London to the Orkneys somebody would soon be in a bad way. Just as that is a sound principle in Post Office administration, so it is equally sound in the administration of transport.
There is, therefore, nothing in principle to which I would object if a Government followed the policy of keeping prices down, provided that they also did something else. It is there that the Minister stops short. What is the use of acting like this to prevent revenue going to the Commission, which it should properly have, unless the Government themselves do something to make up to the Commission the loss which they are imposing upon it?
Why did the Minister not go on to say what he is doing about that? He deliberately omitted to say anything about it. He clearly objects to subsidies. I speak for myself, but I think that I carry a large number of my hon. Friends with me in saying that I have no objection to subsidies. [Laughter.] You laugh, of course, when the Minister keeps railway freights down so that your private enterprise people get the benefit. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish"] Of course you do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is saying "you" When he says "you" he is addressing me, and I have had nothing to do with all this.

Mr. Collick: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is acting quite deliberately in this way to keep charges down, and some of the private enterprise people will receive the benefit of it. But I have no great objection to it as a Socialist. My objection is that the right hon. Gentleman does not follow it to its logical conclusion and tell the country exactly what he is going to do to make the Transport Commission's finances economically sound and put them on a commercial basis.
The British Transport Commission clearly cannot do that if the Government prevent it getting the revenue it otherwise would and does nothing to make it up. The Minister read out a list of things which he tells us are to happen on the railways. With respect, I must say that there is nothing very new about them, apart from the modernisation plan. All these things have been happening on the railways for 20 years. There is nothing revolutionary about them. Economy in administration, economy in manpower, the use of rolling stock to greater efficiency—these are a continuing process in railway administration.

Mr. G. Wilson: Flexibility of charges?

Mr. Collick: The solicitor to the Great Western Railway likes to make these interventions. I cannot see any point in this one. If the hon. Member refers to his Great Western Railway experience, even in the solicitor's office, he must have known that these things were day-to-day experience on the Great Western Railway.

Mr. Wilson: I suggest to the hon. Member that greater flexibility of charges is something which the railways wanted for 20 years and which they now have.

Mr. Collick: I have never dissented from the Transport Commission having much greater flexibility of charges. It is a sensible proposal. It is one thing on which the hon. Member and I agree. What I am complaining about is the Government mystically holding out the notion that in six months something is going to happen to put all this right. The Minister knows as well as I do that nothing is going to happen; that six months hence there is not the remotest chance of the £100 million deficit which the Transport Commission is carrying being wiped out unless the Government does something.
The Minister tonight has not told us one word about the Government's policy. I know something about what the railwaymen are thinking. They would like to know what the Government's policy is. Are they to go on carrying the £100 million deficit, which, as the Minister knows, will continuously increase? It will be increased by several hundreds of thousands of pounds weekly as a result of the Minister's action. Is this to go on,

mounting like a snowball, or is something to be done about it? During the late war the Government made a profit of £115 million by running the railways. Why does not the Government put some of that profit back into the Transport Commission to help to clear up this position and create the spirit which the Minister talks about among operating railwaymen? That £115 million was made out of the blood, and tears and sweat of railwaymen in the conditions in which the railways were run during the war. The Minister would do better if he devoted some time to producing a clear financial policy for the Transport Commission. In six months he will have to face that problem, whatever he tells the House now.
11.20 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: One a the Minister's phrases struck me as sinister. He said that it would be increasingly difficult for him to justfy the huge expenditure on the modernisation plan. I hope that does not indicate that behind the scenes there is some question of abandoning the modernisation plan.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member knows very well that I devoted a great deal of my remarks tonight to the absolute essentiality of carrying on with the modernisation plan. I hope he is going to face facts, as I and the Transport Commission have to face them in the next few months.

Mr. Proctor: I am very pleased to have that repudiation of what I thought was a hint that something of that sort was in the air.
We on this side of the House have a certain amount of sympathy with Ministers in charge of the nationalised industries because they have to contend with Tory Party policy in all these matters. It it the consequences of the Government's policy for the transport industry that faces us tonight. The Tory Party has done irreparable injury to the transport system of this country. Although the Government have to increase charges, they cannot equal the cost of the damage that has been done.
The British Transport Commission has spent much of its time since this Government came to office in defending itself against the Government's attack on its


road services, the most prosperous part of its undertakings. If competition is increased against the Commission on the roads, it is impossible to see how the Commission can recoup itself. It is a task almost impossible of accomplishment as long as the Tory Party follows the policy it is following in road transport.
The Minister prevents the charges being placed on the traffics so that the public do not pay, but they cannot escape paying in the end because the deficit increases, and as the industry is a nationalised one the public have final responsibility for that deficit. It is impossible for the public finally to get out of their liability. If they do not pay the increase in charges now, the deficit persists; it is huge already, and the public eventually will have to face it.
What folly it is for the Government to take away from the nationalised industry the most prosperous part, and to sell lorries at much below their natural price at the present time. It is impossible to perceive any sensible plan in these proposals of the Minister. By his action in repudiating the advice given him by the Commission the Minister is only putting off the evil day. He has given us no constructive plan, or shown how he will meet the problem. The nation must realise that the Government's policy for the transport industry must be changed, and that we must return to a co-operative basis for it, instead of cut-throat competition between road and rail. They must be organised on a co-operative basis to run efficiently with proper charges.
Much has been said about subsidies, but we do not hear any great grumble amongst hon. Members opposite about the hundreds of millions of subsidies given to the agricultural industry. There is no difference in principle between paying a subsidy to agriculture and a subsidy to transport.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now dealing with the finances of the Transport Commission in a rather broader way than these Regulations justify.

Mr. Proctor: I intend to say no more than a couple of sentences, Mr. Speaker. We must face the fact of the financial difficulties which confront our transport system. I am certainly not one to say

that they would not have existed had it not been for the Government's action, but they have been multiplied ten-fold by it. Continuing to follow the Government's foolish plan will not bring any relief to the nation's transport difficulties.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In spite of his interesting remarks, the Minister did not say a single word which justified his intervention in the affairs of the Commission and his laying of the Regulations in the way he has done. In spite of that, because we feel that in relation to the Commission something is better than nothing and 5 per cent. is better than 10 per cent., I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of certain allowances under the Family Allowances Acts, 1945 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parlia-merit—

A. of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section one of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session

(a) increasing by two shillings the weekly rate of the allowance payable in respect of each child of a family other than the two eldest;
(b) providing that a person shall be treated a a child for the purposes of the said Act of 1945 during any period before he or she attains the age of eighteen years whilst he or she is undergoing full-time instruction in a school or is an apprentice or during any period whilst he or she is under the age of sixteen years and is incapacitated by illness or disability of mind or body both for attendance at a school and for employment;
(c) validating certain marriages for the purposes of family allowances;
(d) making provision with respect to reciprocal arrangements with other countries in connection with family allowances;
(e) authorising a person who has been committed by an order of any court under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to the care of a local authority to be treated in certain circumstances as included in a family for the purposes of family allowances;


B. of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section twenty of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, subsection (1) of section sixty of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or subsection (1) of section thirty-eight of the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation and benefit, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—


(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other Government Department in carrying the Act into effect:
(b) if the Act applies subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Assistance Act, 1948, so as to reduce the liabilities under the Act of the Industrial Injuries Fund by reference to the amount of any assistance grants, the payment out of the Fund into the Exchequer of an amount equal to any such reduction.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.